40 ms·

A protest becomes terrorism when it prevents access to vital services (eg "picketing" a hospital and not allowing ambulances in/out)

by devnul3 15y ago

pyre 15y ago
So if a bunch of hospital workers were protesting their pay and formed a picket line around a hospital, their purpose would be to 'instill terror?' Somehow this comes across as adding to the dilution of the word 'terrorism.' Do you really think that picketing a hospital is comparable to using guerilla tactics against a civilian population? I'm not agreeing that people should be allowed to prevent access to a hospital, but the idea that 'terrorism' is the best label for this sort of action seems ill-advised. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think that anyone would have called such actions 'terrorism' back in the 90's, why is it all of the sudden terrorism now? Seems like any deliberate action by a small group of people against a larger group of people that will have any sort of adverse affect on the larger group is being crammed into the 'terrorism' bucket these days...
- devnul3 15y ago
  if you're in the ambulance, or think you might be, and are refused access to life-saving medicine, you will be terrified. Terrorism is using force or the threat of force against a population to achieve political or economic goals. That is chapter and verse what Anon is doing with these threats. There are (obviously) degrees of terrorism. Hitting buildings with planes isn't the same as sending a few letters with anthrax in them. But both are terrorism.
  - pyre 15y ago
    > Terrorism is using force or the threat of force > against a population to achieve political or economic > goals A bunch of people handcuffed in a circle around a hospital doesn't have anything to do with 'force.' Just sayin'.
    - dedward 15y ago
      okay, lets see..... so your kid is in the mbulNce on his way to the hospital. a bunch of people, by way of their sheer numbers, purposefully prevent your kid from receiving the medical attention he needs. kid dies. i agree terrorism is a strertch, to be sure.... . but lets not mix words. a picket line is one thing, they generally wont physically stop you from passing. there are plenty of countries in the workd, quite nice places otherwise, where such proteststurn into full blockades of highways, and they will not let an ambulance or anyone else past. the first time i saw this i wondered why they were not all arrested for blocking a critical transit route ( And this was no exaggeration or trumped up thing....f they blocked the highway for days. a few people died for kack of medical care)
    - devnul3 15y ago
      Inertia == force. Just sayin'
- devnul3 15y ago
  And to more directly address your first question, no, their goal wouldn't be to instil terror. That's never the goal, merely the method. This is why the subject gets clouded, terrorists _goals_ are to achieve change. Their _method_ is to do this by insilling terror.

A protest becomes terrorism when it prevents access to vital services (eg "picketing" a hospital and not allowing ambulances in/out)

by devnul3 15y ago

A protest becomes terrorism when it prevents access to vital services (eg "picketing" a hospital and not allowing ambulances in/out)

pyre 15y ago

So if a bunch of hospital workers were protesting their pay and formed a picket line around a hospital, their purpose would be to 'instill terror?' Somehow this comes across as adding to the dilution of the word 'terrorism.' Do you really think that picketing a hospital is comparable to using guerilla tactics against a civilian population? I'm not agreeing that people should be allowed to prevent access to a hospital, but the idea that 'terrorism' is the best label for this sort of action seems ill-advised. Maybe I'm being naive, but I don't think that anyone would have called such actions 'terrorism' back in the 90's, why is it all of the sudden terrorism now? Seems like any deliberate action by a small group of people against a larger group of people that will have any sort of adverse affect on the larger group is being crammed into the 'terrorism' bucket these days...

devnul3 15y ago
if you're in the ambulance, or think you might be, and are refused access to life-saving medicine, you will be terrified. Terrorism is using force or the threat of force against a population to achieve political or economic goals. That is chapter and verse what Anon is doing with these threats. There are (obviously) degrees of terrorism. Hitting buildings with planes isn't the same as sending a few letters with anthrax in them. But both are terrorism.
- pyre 15y ago
  > Terrorism is using force or the threat of force > against a population to achieve political or economic > goals A bunch of people handcuffed in a circle around a hospital doesn't have anything to do with 'force.' Just sayin'.
  - dedward 15y ago
    okay, lets see..... so your kid is in the mbulNce on his way to the hospital. a bunch of people, by way of their sheer numbers, purposefully prevent your kid from receiving the medical attention he needs. kid dies. i agree terrorism is a strertch, to be sure.... . but lets not mix words. a picket line is one thing, they generally wont physically stop you from passing. there are plenty of countries in the workd, quite nice places otherwise, where such proteststurn into full blockades of highways, and they will not let an ambulance or anyone else past. the first time i saw this i wondered why they were not all arrested for blocking a critical transit route ( And this was no exaggeration or trumped up thing....f they blocked the highway for days. a few people died for kack of medical care)
  - devnul3 15y ago
    Inertia == force. Just sayin'
devnul3 15y ago
And to more directly address your first question, no, their goal wouldn't be to instil terror. That's never the goal, merely the method. This is why the subject gets clouded, terrorists _goals_ are to achieve change. Their _method_ is to do this by insilling terror.