Are you talking about current accusations against Paul Watson?
The grenades were « smelly ones », not the one to kill. Also that Japanese sailor that accuse Paul, actually did harm himself by sending a projectile in the wind opposite direction, therefore the projectile came back to him. There à public footage showing it. The court didn’t accept to see it yet, because it would Free Paul from charges. This is a political case.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
There's really no difference between the two, except perspective. If most of society greatly disapproves of their actions, then they're a "terrorist". If they're successful with their campaign, and most people (maybe in the future) approve of their actions, they're a "freedom fighter".
> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
This is as tropey as it is untrue.
Post WWII, successful revolutionaries rarely terrorised civilians. (Even the Taliban in its fight to retake Afghanistan largely constrained itself to military targets.)
Before WWII, certainly the Napoleonic Wars, total war was the norm—the line between enemy armies, terrorists, criminal gangs and revolutionaries didn’t exist on a practical level because the concept of war crimes, atrocities and crimes against humanity didn’t exist. Raping and pillaging began to be frowned upon in that broad interwar period, which encapsulates the Great War, but that varied significantly from place to place. (In antiquity. exterminating the enemy was almost best practice.)
So no. If you’re using violence as a political tool against non-military targets, you’re not a freedom fighter. You’re a terrorist. The only grey areas are collateral damage and political executions, e.g. purging an old regime. (Even then, it’s a grey line between freedom fighter and war criminal, or revolutionary and brutal autocrat. Not terrorist.)
> Even the Taliban in its fight to retake Afghanistan largely constrained itself to military targets.
Are you kidding? If you are a civilian and the Taliban think you were affiliated with or benefiting from the old regime, you were and are a target.
The same applies to any revolutionary or independence movement anywhere in the world. If you are an ordinary poor farmer or a laborer, they will probably leave you alone (might requisition your home or your crops though). But if you are a professor, a policeman, an official, a business owner, a journalist, writer, or artist, or simply a prominent person in some way (in terms of your education, wealth, influence, loudly voiced opinions, religion, ethnic origin, etc.) - watch out, because there is a good chance they'll want to hang you.
> If you are a civilian and the Taliban think you were affiliated with or benefiting from the old regime, you were and are a target
Governments brutalising their own citizens aren’t terorrists.
> there is a good chance they'll want to hang you
Fair enough, I suppose I should qualify political violence against non-military targets with indiscriminate. There is a difference between murderous revolutionary regimes and terrorism. (One key element, however, being the word “regime.” Killing professors after taking power isn’t terrorism. Killing professors before seizing control is.)
> Activist or terrorist? Those groups have blurred the line
Irrespective of official designation or intent, if you’re inflicting political violence on unarmed civilians, you’re a terrorist. If not, you’re something else.
define political violence acts? Taking pictures of someone doing something that might be awful to expose that they are doing something awful is what I imagine these people do. That doesn't feel like what I'd call political violence. P.V. would be trying to shoot someone, maybe bringing up a crowd to chase someone away because you don't like what they are saying. You know, threatening.
Trespassing is what they are doing if they come in and take pictures when they are supposed to be there on private property. Can you explain what you mean here?
Star Trek's McCoy delivers a grim description in "The City on the Edge of Forever", about how primitive 20th century medicine once relied on crude and bloody procedures. I think once lab-grown proteins are common in markets across the world, ethicists and historians will be more free to point to these last 50 years as the most horrific, in terms of inhumane treatment of animals on an amazing scale (I just looked this cheery tidbit up, 166,000 pigs are slaughtered per hour, year round, worldwide.) I'm 100% complicit in this. I eat meat, but for some reason as I get older it's harder for me to keep a comfortable distance from this issue.
I feel the same way, but I grew up on a small farm. I've got a thing where I can make peace with it if the animals are treated well or as my friend calls it "one bad day policy". I drive by huge mega farms where the animals never go outside and they smell horrid (I love the smell of a small farm, but yes, they all have a smell) and can't really feel good about buying meat or dairy from these places.
> it's never been easier to find high-quality info about vegan nutrition and recipe ideas
Veganism is probably too far for the broad population. Ovo-lacto vegetarianism, where you're purchasing eggs and dairy from a specific farm (or reputable brand), is more accessible and close in terms of ethical and environmental impact.
If you mean can we sell 8 billion people on ovo-lacto vegetarianism, I don’t know. What I know is it’s easier than selling even one billion on veganism.
If you mean can we literally maintain the supply chains the answer is obviously yes. We already produce enough food for everyone in a world where 6+ billion eat meat.
> purchasing eggs and dairy from a specific farm (or reputable brand)
What does this even mean anyway? Current system works because of being able to buy from multiple sources through the global supply chains and commoditizing food. Specific farms won't work for 8 billion people.
For now veganism is outside the Overton window but this is changing, and it needs to, because it's actually much better & cheaper than ovo-lacto vegetarianism even via a "better" commercial farm - they still get rid of the newly born males, they usually get rid of the older "less productive" females, feeding animals is still an inefficient use of land & energy, and cows still generate methane..
> this is changing, and it needs to, because it's actually much better & cheaper
Cheaper doesn’t mean better. And perfect is the enemy of the good. We are generations away from ovo-lacto vegetarian dominance, let alone veganism. If I were tasked with defeating vegetarianism, I’d push a vegan or nothing mantra.
From the 80s to the 2000s, the met police in the UK poured resources into infiltrating animal rights groups with agent provocateurs. As well as carrying out firebombings etc, these officers engaged in sexual relationships with targets and in some cases fathered children with them before disappearing. The details that have come to light are shocking enough, I'm sure worse happened that isn't public.
28 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 74.2 ms ] threadThe grenades were « smelly ones », not the one to kill. Also that Japanese sailor that accuse Paul, actually did harm himself by sending a projectile in the wind opposite direction, therefore the projectile came back to him. There à public footage showing it. The court didn’t accept to see it yet, because it would Free Paul from charges. This is a political case.
There's really no difference between the two, except perspective. If most of society greatly disapproves of their actions, then they're a "terrorist". If they're successful with their campaign, and most people (maybe in the future) approve of their actions, they're a "freedom fighter".
This is as tropey as it is untrue.
Post WWII, successful revolutionaries rarely terrorised civilians. (Even the Taliban in its fight to retake Afghanistan largely constrained itself to military targets.)
Before WWII, certainly the Napoleonic Wars, total war was the norm—the line between enemy armies, terrorists, criminal gangs and revolutionaries didn’t exist on a practical level because the concept of war crimes, atrocities and crimes against humanity didn’t exist. Raping and pillaging began to be frowned upon in that broad interwar period, which encapsulates the Great War, but that varied significantly from place to place. (In antiquity. exterminating the enemy was almost best practice.)
So no. If you’re using violence as a political tool against non-military targets, you’re not a freedom fighter. You’re a terrorist. The only grey areas are collateral damage and political executions, e.g. purging an old regime. (Even then, it’s a grey line between freedom fighter and war criminal, or revolutionary and brutal autocrat. Not terrorist.)
Are you kidding? If you are a civilian and the Taliban think you were affiliated with or benefiting from the old regime, you were and are a target.
The same applies to any revolutionary or independence movement anywhere in the world. If you are an ordinary poor farmer or a laborer, they will probably leave you alone (might requisition your home or your crops though). But if you are a professor, a policeman, an official, a business owner, a journalist, writer, or artist, or simply a prominent person in some way (in terms of your education, wealth, influence, loudly voiced opinions, religion, ethnic origin, etc.) - watch out, because there is a good chance they'll want to hang you.
Governments brutalising their own citizens aren’t terorrists.
> there is a good chance they'll want to hang you
Fair enough, I suppose I should qualify political violence against non-military targets with indiscriminate. There is a difference between murderous revolutionary regimes and terrorism. (One key element, however, being the word “regime.” Killing professors after taking power isn’t terrorism. Killing professors before seizing control is.)
If it's so dangerous because of viruses and whatnot, surely that's on the farmers?
The only connection to WMD charges is that it was mentioned in the memo as an example of "minor criminal activity".
The article seems to be deliberately misleading.
Irrespective of official designation or intent, if you’re inflicting political violence on unarmed civilians, you’re a terrorist. If not, you’re something else.
Trespassing is what they are doing if they come in and take pictures when they are supposed to be there on private property. Can you explain what you mean here?
Veganism is probably too far for the broad population. Ovo-lacto vegetarianism, where you're purchasing eggs and dairy from a specific farm (or reputable brand), is more accessible and close in terms of ethical and environmental impact.
What’s “that”? What do you mean by “work”?
If you mean can we sell 8 billion people on ovo-lacto vegetarianism, I don’t know. What I know is it’s easier than selling even one billion on veganism.
If you mean can we literally maintain the supply chains the answer is obviously yes. We already produce enough food for everyone in a world where 6+ billion eat meat.
What does this even mean anyway? Current system works because of being able to buy from multiple sources through the global supply chains and commoditizing food. Specific farms won't work for 8 billion people.
Cheaper doesn’t mean better. And perfect is the enemy of the good. We are generations away from ovo-lacto vegetarian dominance, let alone veganism. If I were tasked with defeating vegetarianism, I’d push a vegan or nothing mantra.
Man that hardly seems believable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_undercover_policing_relatio...