Violence is the supreme arbiter of human disputes.

God made it this way, if you disagree, it simply doesn't matter, because of above. Violence is the supreme arbiter of disputes. God loves violence when it is waged in His honour, against the wicked.

Why is this supposed to be "obvious"?
Are islamists just supposed to sing kumbayah and hold hands until Israel and the USA decide to stop strangling the middle east in their grip?
Like the pre-american revolution or the countries invaded in WW2, they have no peaceful recourse, they are occupied by foreign oppressors and violence is their only recourse, right?

Why do you think Luigi's terrorism is okay but Osama's wasn't? Terrorism for me but not for thee?

If you felt like you were being occupied by foreign oppressors, do you think flying planes into buildings full of a couple thousand people wholly unaware of your existence on the other side of the planet would be the right sort of violence to combat that? Or would you organize a popular assembly with clear and reasonable demands(no taxation without representation), and if those demands were not met, fight to kick the oppressors out of your territory?

Aggression on foreign soil is what you do when you're trying to obliterate a foreign government or people(ie. invading Nazi Germany), not when you're trying to gain independence. This too seems obvious to me.

The last line is a misunderstanding. I'll forgive you for it. I've repeatedly said in this thread that I don't think killing that CEO was justified, I even said it in a post you quoted.

A popular assembly with clear and reasonable demands, formed by a democratic representative committee would constitute what we call a form of government. An organized group with a mandate from the masses, representing its interests. Which is the basis of nation-states and nascent revolutions. And the use of violence by sovereign entities against each other is not terrorism, but warfare. Neither Luigi nor Osama Bin Laden were members of a government entity in a sovereign country conducting warfare consistent with international protocols. Private individuals engaged in sociopolitical/religious motivated acts of violence in an attempt to influence policy are called terrorists.

Weegee over here has no more or no less legitimacy than the guy who gunned down black people in Buffalo and left behind a manifesto saying he was combatting anti-white genocide and the great replacement. No more or less legitimacy than Osama Bin Laden, or Brenton Tarrant, or the Unabomber, or Timothy McVeign or the DC snipers.

Again... I've never defended this greasy luigi fella. You quoted a post where I said I don't support his actions. I don't know why you're having a hard time with this.

You're trying to argue with me about something I don't believe and never said.

Is the difference between a terrorist group and a government not simply a matter of perspective? E.g. Nazi Germany on the organized end, and a local gang that extorts taxes & protection money from a local populace on the smaller less organized end

Not disagreeing with your points but more pointing out that the line between a terrorist group and a government is fuzzy and can only often be defined by power (a terrorist group that holds power is a government). Al-Qaeda for example could be considered a government-in-exile (of the Caliphate) if they do not hold state power, similar to the Polish government in World War 2.

This post was edited by El1te on Dec 15 2024 07:22pm

You said violence is obviously sometimes the answer. Green mario over here said the parasites had it coming. Who decides when violence is the answer? because;



Its more than a matter of perspective of one person, its a matter of perspective of societies and the world at large. Sovereignty and international recognition of legitimacy. A government, whether elected or monarchal or a military junta can represent a sovereign country and make decisions for it like going to war- and that perspective is recognized by both their subjects and other nations. And yet, a single antifa commie who wants to start a revolution by blowing up an ICE facility does not represent a government in anyone's eyes. That line can get fuzzy, but it usually isn't. Al-Qaeda never really solidified territory enough to create its own nation nor take over an existing one, and certainly had no international legitimacy. ISIS was abhorred by most of the world but did establish a brief caliphate, and its reasonable to say the fighting it did in Syria was warfare not terrorism at the time even if we officially label it the latter. And yet, attacks in sympathy or inspired by ISIS abroad by lone wolves are still terrorism because they are not formal operatives of a foreign power, just islamists.

In a lot of cases that legitimacy and recognition is a posteriori. The founding fathers would have been hung separately as Franklin quipped. It was by reaching critical mass and fighting for their self-rule they established a sovereign nation, which became recognized by both the people of America and the world. Al Qaeda, Hamas, later ISIS affiliates, etc don't have the force of arms to achieve sovereignty and instead stay terrorists.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Dec 15 2024 09:27pm

I decide, and you decide, and everyone else does too. Justification isn't objective, it's entirely a matter of perspective. Of course Osama Bin Laden believed his actions were justified. I believe the American revolution was justified and I don't believe that this guy killing some other guy was. If the entire world except me decided that Hitler was right, that does not make him any more or less right than he already was, it does not enter into the equation in my mind.

If you're considering the viewpoint of the masses before you decide what to believe, you're fucking up. That's the opposite of morality. If the mob wants to lynch a suspect before he sees trial, you do not let them. Obviously.

Why does your personal morality supersede everyone else's?
If a mob is lynching a suspect, they are putting their personal judgment above that of society and the rule of law, over the settled upon rules we live by
If a jury is convicting a suspect and a judge sentencing him, they are obeying the social contract in a civil society

The distinction is not arbitrary nor subjective. Everyone decides, collectively, and we call it democracy.