cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15035901
this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
943 points (95.9% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9748 readers
214 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I see a cult with a fortified compound and armed soldiers, with multiple missed paroles and a history of armed violence going back over a decade. If they're not terrorist then what the fuck are they?
They are also victims, none of the things that occurred on May 13th should have ever happened with competent and respectful leadership and negotiation perhaps by the FBI or actual service members, but being a victim doesn't erase every stupid indecent thing people have ever done.
Those children died in the cult's basement. MOVE continued shooting at Firefighters after their roof burst into flames.
Sounds awfully familiar.
Thank goodness it wasn't the same scale as that event, but at least the FBI attempted to negotiate and staved off a full offensive until 51 days had passed. If the Philadelphia police had shown that kind of respect and restraint then things might have ended a lot differently for the MOVE members.
And yet the Waco siege is still a rallying cry for anti-government groups accusing the FBI and DEA of unjust, violent overreaction, while the MOVE bombing is not. Huh, I wonder what the difference is? /s
Could unironically be the difference in body count.
That's possible, but that doesn't explain the same feeling about the Ruby Ridge incident.
let's not kid ourselves, it's not the body count, it's the same reason they don't cite Tulsa nor Blair Mountain
they don't you say? so none of them involved Government force, and not for the better?
but let's be honest, Tulsa just had mainly black victims and was supported by the government (this is fine)
Blair Mountain just had mainly socialists as victims and was supported by the government (this is also fine)
but Waco, those were upstanding whites who refused the tyrannical mandate of the government (real victims)
because this has nothing to do with concentration camps, and everything to do with the American government and government related massacres in America?
I mean, if you want to bring concentration camps into this, we can start talking about why a majority of the American prison population is black and are used as life long slave labor.
oh ya, i forgot, for some reason we keep adding new groups to "white" to keep a majority in anything
no, but for a long time Irish, Italians, Germans etc... weren't white, until they needed to increase the size of "whites" because there weren't enough WASPS to outnumber POC
yup, "white" is a completely artificial concept that originated in America (as in the continent) as part of the slave trade justification.
not even the Nazis had this "white" concept, in fact European racism is not along the lines of skin color
That's a borderline insult, and you reported them for misinformation when what they're saying is how it really was.
I think the confusion is they're talking about what really happened, and you're acting like they're saying it was right.
"White" was expanded in America to include Irish and Italians.
As they lost the majority, they'd let in more groups to maintain the majority. No one is saying that made logical sense, and those lines are arbitrary.
But that is what happened.
https://www.theroot.com/when-the-irish-weren-t-white-1793358754
I've reviewed the older messages and you've kept this going for over a week, never sourced anything, and have not been civil...
I'm not sure why you'd want a mod to look at that, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Terrorist is just a loaded word. Like Hamas is a "terrorist organization" but the state of Israel isn't.
Terrorism often boils down to "enacting violence against systems of oppression". Is the IDF a terrorist organization? What about the DoD? These organizations use violence to perpetuate existing systems of oppression, causing vastly more harm than any domestic "terrorist" organization ever will.
While these 11 people were being killed by the state for being "terrorists", the CIA was backing fascists (contras) to overthrow democratically elected socialists in Nicaragua. Is the CIA a terrorist organization?
No man they literally threatened to bomb other countries for shit happening in the us, that's everyone's definition of terrorism.
This misses the point. If we're being technical, Hamas/MOVE is obviously a terrorist organization. Trying to convince me that they are isn't going to change my position, because I already believe that.
It's just that in-so-far as Hamas/MOVE etc. are terrorist organizations, the CIA/IDF are far larger ones. They inflict terror and use violence for political gain, the only difference is they're the ones in power so they decide who is a terrorist.
That's the problem with the word. The IDF and Hamas are both violent terror groups that shouldn't exist, but Hamas only exists as a result of the IDF's genocidal campaign, and yet we only call Hamas a terror group. It's deeply problematic.
no, the CIA and IDF are "freedom fighters"
Correct.
That's whataboutism, multiple wrongs don't make a right and none of MOVE's actions are forgiven by this argument.
Calling this whataboutism is like responding to the claim "people have a biological urge to reproduce" as a naturalistic fallacy.
You're using the word in sorta the right ballpark (I did make a comparison, e.g a "what about"), however not every time someone says "what about X" are they committing a fallacy.
My entire point was how terrorist is a loaded word, that we only use it to describe one side (the side not in power), even though the technical definition obviously fits organizations in power. Making a comparison to demonstrate my literal only point isn't fallacious.
There were native american terror groups, yet the U.S government that literally genocided millions of native Americans isn't a terror organization, despite their use of terror and violence to achieve political goals. It's a word with clear problematic etymology.
The CIA supporting Fascism in South America has fuck all to do with a confrontation between militarized police and a cult on May 13th 1985 in Philadelphia. If you think that's not whataboutism then you're dumb as a sack of bricks.
Yeah no need to get this hostile.
The word "terrorist" was used, and getting into the etymology of the word is best exemplified by how large "non-terrorist" organizations operate exactly like large terrorist organizations.
Yeah but what about the CIA, right? Those are an example of terrorists, right? But yeah what about Hillary Clinton's Emails? But what about the cost of recycling solar? What about it, right? What about those, you got an answer for those?
Exactly. And saying "what about" isn't always a fallacy. That's like thinking anyone says a natural fact they're committing a naturalistic fallacy.
But what about the Grand Canyon?
Yup, you can also make comparisons to irrelevant things. Not all comparisons are fallacious.
The way the CIA/IDF behave compared to other "terrorist" organizations is relevant to the etymology of the word. I don't see how the Grand Canyon relates to any point you or I made.
But what about the moon landing?
Oh wow, I didn't get it until this message, fuck I'm an idiot. All comparisons are always fallacious. Thanks for helping me out, friend.
But what about Jeffrey Epstein? Jeffrey Epstein ran a terrorist organization and this cult ran a terrorist organization and therefor Jeffrey Epstein is involved in the MOVE cult. And the CIA. /sarcasm
Yeah, that was my point. I can't believe I didn't see what my own point was until you cleared it up for me. It wasn't about how "terrorist was a loaded word" even though that's what I said.
I'm glad you're here to clear up the difference between what I said and what I meant, otherwise I'd be genuinely lost.
Keep it coming.
Oppressed groups have an internationally recognized right to resist.
This was 1985. If they were discriminated against then they could have settled it in the courts, not by forming a cult and fortifying a compound.
both of those actions are not illegal