• andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is it terrorism in the law tho? Obviously keeping in mind who writes it and whose point of view is codified. That conversation may be more nuanced than you think. Especially if all other things we can call terrorism are considered.

    • Nudding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree and I understand. However, we are talking about the collapse of humanity, the environment, most species, etc for the next 10 million years. So at this point, who are the real eco terrorists?

      • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a problem of perceiving terror as something having a negative connotation by itself. It is a tool. Like a gun, or a knife. And having a moral high ground (like there, or in many more controversial cases) doesn’t erase the fact it is perceived as or is an act of terror.

        Guerilla warfare against occupational forces is terrorism. Political assasinations of opressors are too. Taking kneecaps of an oil baron who levels forests and poisons nature is it as well.

        And, you name it, there are even more ways of terrorism you’d see as dumb, senseless, inhumane. Take wrapping a civilian child in explosives to blow up a guarded checkpoint. It’s fucked up, right? And it’s not the act of terror itself that makes you puke at a thought of it, but this tool used for insane reasons and how fucking far they took it. If it was a croatian jew taking nazis with themselfes, it would be portrayed as a heroic self-sacrificing act. As a bystander, you see these extreme acts of violence through your lenses and judge reasoning behind it first. That’s why eco-terrorism doesn’t ring any bells. It’s an attack that is rationally justified to you, usually pretty victimless. And it’s relativism at it’s extremes.

        At some point you see you can’t escape but thinking of terrorist tactics to achieve that one goal, because nothing else seems as effective. It is muddy waters. It needs slow and thoughtful consideration. If it means saving natives’ land, would you consider torching building equipment, an office or shooting a corporate shithead in their face? You probably can. But would you? And would it be better than whatever comes to mind when you hear the T-word? Would you take all responsibility and all the consequences of what you did on yourself? Wouldn’t you regret it?

        On Lemmy we can speak like we are all super based, and there are just causes. Talk is cheap. What matters is if you even feel yourself applauding such acts, you need to be double sure you aren’t a dumbass hypocrite and you really know what are you after. Not mirroring ‘they are killing my world, so they are to be killed’, yada-yada, because kids upvote that shit like crazy, but really meaning it if you say so, being responsible about it.

        I feel like I’d end up on some lists for speaking that out loud lmao, but a lot of historical figures we adore are terrorists. Gaining independence of USA was that to brits, Robin Hood myths were that to crown, revolutionaires weren’t shy from actually calling their actions a targeted terrorism against the state. By learning about good and bad terrorism, you can see where you yourself put it and how you relate to it. Usually, as I said, it ends up in deciding if the goal justifies the means, in a dissociated machiavellian way of thinking. Usually. But you are to form your own framework to handle it, obv.

        It’s just, I mumble, why eco-terrorism isn’t terrorism because it’s somehow just? And why it can’t be called a justified terrorism instead? What’s the point of whitewashing it besides wining a public support, likely lying about what it really is? Does it change anything but media coverage? Why would it matter in the end?

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would posit the problem is more so “Is having a livable habitat for the earth’s inhabitants political?”

          • andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Everything is political as it seems, even mere existence of our trans fellas, because it’s either needs to be changed via politics or can get weaponized by bad faith actors as a populist take. Survival is sometimes political. And as an old soviet saying goes, if you aren’t that interested in politics, politics may become interested in you.

            As resource extractors use politics as a vehicle to lobby their interests, fucking with them is indeed political, even if it’s a universally accepted cause like a survival of humankind.