To call some acts "terror" is to pretend that (say) being shot at on a conventional battlefield is NOT terrifying. Huh?
Conversation
Replying to
It's figurative, but the point is that "terrorist" attacks are more intent on emotional/propaganda impact than practical effects.
2
Replying to
. I think we again underestimate how much emotional impact/propaganda has always been a goal of war
1
2
Replying to
We do!
But there's a spectrum from mostly tactical (resist a charge) to mostly PR (publicly execute dissident's family).
1
Replying to
my point is methodological innovation is always going on. Mythologizing it is an own-goal.
2
1
1
Replying to
Actually the word "civilian" is almost as bad as "terrorist." There are no innocent civilians in a democracy. All condone war.
2
Replying to
But you're saying the Amish are/were complicit for all US military action? They aren't even hip to 1776, calling us "English".
2
Replying to
Yes. Until we live in a polity where there are choices in consent-of-governed, if you make even indirect use of the state...
1
Replying to
Hm...how about a community of felons & their families in a US neighborhood where policing=occupation? Denied benefits; only local wars.
1
Replying to
Yes, combatants in local power struggle, but they're excluded from full citizenship & choose local affiliation.
1
Replying to
That case is too complex for Twitter. My view would probably run to a few pages.
Replying to
Too complex, I agree; kudos for saying so.
I feel a lot clearer on your position, though, and that the conversation stretched my brain.
1
1
Replying to
Without FOCJ governance, certain questions and problems in political science are essentially going to be undecidable.
1
Show replies

