Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

werd.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#71

Post by DangitBobby »

pasta67 wrote: post #67
foobarchu wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what's the right to it doing in the constitution?

The constitution is fine. The main issue is about definition of oppression that is shifted by Left. And can I point the dissonance here as you seem to not get it - you want to overthrow "oppression"... and AT THE SAME TIME complain that "opressive" government has unfair laws against you? If you do not succeed at overthrowing "oppression", expect to be punished like losers, as state has monopoly on violence and is fre…

There's no dissonance in saying that the oppression is oppressive and the oppressors violate their own laws.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#72

Post by DangitBobby »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #66
hughw wrote: post #32

Nobody's talking about how "terrorism" has expanded to mean, in law, armed opposition the the government. Throw in terrorism and the sentence goes up dramatically. Is it possible to oppose the government with arms yet not be a terrorist? I'd say, yes. But I never expect to see a prosecution acknowledge that. They're even making drug smugglers into terrorists and murdering them extrajudicially.

Armed opposition to the government seems like a pretty central definition of terrorism to me. Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that's true in all armed conflicts between nations and aspiring nations.

Isn't terrorism typically carried out against civilians and non-combatants? Surely not all violence is terrorism or it ceases to have any meaning.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#73

Post by DangitBobby »

prepend wrote: post #61

> One fired an AR-15 at the police This is what makes this different. There’s lots of gun clubs all over the place. But if a member shoots at the police (or anyone, really) they are going to get the book thrown at them and everyone associated with them who helped them, etc. Because that changes your club from something normal to something that tried to shoot cops. There’s a group in my town called the NFA club or som…

It would be nice if cops could start following the law, in this case not firing at non-combatants would have sufficed.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#75

Post by JuniperMesos »

DangitBobby wrote: post #72
JuniperMesos wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Armed opposition to the government seems like a pretty central definition of terrorism to me. Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that's true in all armed conflicts between nations and aspiring nations.

Isn't terrorism typically carried out against civilians and non-combatants? Surely not all violence is terrorism or it ceases to have any meaning.

If you're treating cops and guards at an immigration detention facility as "non-civilians" and "combatants", then this is a good sign that the thing you're doing is engaging in some kind of ideological rebellion against the state. Which is fair to call terrorism, unless you're in favor of it, in which case you'd call it freedom fighting or rebellion but with positive valence.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#76

Post by bArray »

pasta67 wrote: post #69
qwery wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "out of bounds" is a nice way of putting it. This I agree with. > it was knowingly concealing evidence The article does not misrepresent this. The issue being raised is about how they were tried/convicted/sentenced. The part you quoted shows this. > Terrorism is an accurate description. > ... the difference here is the planned terrorist activity, ... If the Proud Boys were doing [the] same sort of thing ... I'm gen…

Terrorism comes from word terror - it is use of violence to impose terrorist goals. Usually political. The fact that they have chosen as a target police is just return to classical terrorism that existed 100+ years ago. Targeting innocents by taking hostages, 911 or blowing up cooker are quite recent developments for terrorist activities. What was your definition for terrorism?

My view is still relatively classical, significant unsanctioned violence used for political means. I would also be interested to see how other people are now defining this.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#77

Post by eviks »

hughw wrote: post #32

Nobody's talking about how "terrorism" has expanded to mean, in law, armed opposition the the government. Throw in terrorism and the sentence goes up dramatically. Is it possible to oppose the government with arms yet not be a terrorist? I'd say, yes. But I never expect to see a prosecution acknowledge that. They're even making drug smugglers into terrorists and murdering them extrajudicially.

What do you mean, the boomerang and expansion are the most common criticisms of all that "war on terror"?

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#78

Post by a96 »

DangitBobby wrote: post #72
JuniperMesos wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Armed opposition to the government seems like a pretty central definition of terrorism to me. Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that's true in all armed conflicts between nations and aspiring nations.

Isn't terrorism typically carried out against civilians and non-combatants? Surely not all violence is terrorism or it ceases to have any meaning.

Yes. That's the defining difference to guerrilla warfare.

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#79

Post by armchairhacker »

muwtyhg wrote: post #63
armchairhacker wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, that guy’s sentence is egregious (they all are, as were the Jan 6 ones, but I think he shouldn’t even have jail time). I have less sympathy towards those who vandalized and the one who shot at police. 100 years is insane, but those acts are blatantly illegal.

> as were the Jan 6 ones 30 years was the MINIMUM sentence given to this group. The MAXIMUM sentence given to J6 rioters was 22 years. Are you honestly still trying to conflate the two?

30 is way way too long

22 is still way too long

Re: Signs you're a dangerous terrorist: using Signal, moving zines

#80

Post by tsol »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #66
hughw wrote: post #32

Nobody's talking about how "terrorism" has expanded to mean, in law, armed opposition the the government. Throw in terrorism and the sentence goes up dramatically. Is it possible to oppose the government with arms yet not be a terrorist? I'd say, yes. But I never expect to see a prosecution acknowledge that. They're even making drug smugglers into terrorists and murdering them extrajudicially.

Armed opposition to the government seems like a pretty central definition of terrorism to me. Of course one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but that's true in all armed conflicts between nations and aspiring nations.

In that case America's founding would be rooted in terrorism. Against the British monarchy, of course.
Post reply on HN