https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleed ing_Kansas When did you

>>1997871
So was the American Revolution

>>1997878
I didn't say that they invented terrorism. One need only read the Bible to find various acts of terrorism written in such a light that, to this day, Jews and Christians alike see political violence and divine justice or the unfolding of providence as one broad phenomenon.

>>1997871
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacking_of_Lawrence

>When did you realize that abolitionism was terrorism?

What's wrong with this?

>>1997893
Also terrorism.
>>1997906
Terrorism is wrong.

Slavery is terrorism brah.

How do you think you keep the niggers in line? It sure as fuck isn't by paying them.

Abolition is counter-terrorism. And Counter-Terrorists win.

>>1997921
Bomb has been planted.

>>1997921
>The use of violence implies terrorism
If a slave-owner in a legitimate state which recognizes the legal right of individuals to own individuals beats one of his slaves to keep the others from acting out, he is acting within his rights as dictated by the state. The only terrorist in the room is the slave who tried to incite his fellow bondsmen to revolt, resulting in punishment within the bounds of the law and within the limits of reason.

Daily Reminder that John Brown was a murderer.

>>1997935
Hope you'd think the same if you were a slave then.

>>1997935
Spooked: the post

>>1997955
If I were a slave, why would I recognize that state as legitimate?
My opinion doesn't matter, as my opinion has been excluded from the equation determining legitimacy, due to my status as a slave.
This has to do with the definitions of the words involved in the post you're replying to. Do you not understand that resorting to political violence for the sake of a universal transformation of societies around the world is a big jump from accepting that humans have an essential freedom that has to be respected, or how big a deal a slave revolt is even from the perspective of a slave? Are you that trendy?
I'm exaggerating, but really, my point is that advocating political violence is a big deal, almost as big as committing it. I don't understand why someone would disagree when the substantial running of a government boils down to deciding where the Army is going to be invading this year and how big the budget is going to be. Political violence and political opinions are really almost entirely different things--one is born of a desire to see the noumenal world enter the phenomenal, the other for the sake of preserving the structure of life in the phenomenal world.

>>1997955
>>1997967
>>1997985
>inb4 'muh army is a terrorist organization'
Not if it's the armed forces of a legitimate state, Noam.

>>1997871
wtf i hate america nao!

>>1997935
Brah, the term terrorism was invented to describe what the French government was doing to its enemies.

Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate a population into compliance with your goals.

Slavery can't exist without it.

>>1998011
By that standard, every police officer and soldier involved in occupying a foreign territory is a terrorist. The term 'terrorism' today means violence used for the sake of political goals.
By your standard, all nations are ethnic groups, and every nation-state ought to be an ethno state, because of the original sense of the word 'nation.'

File: 14068326_1765286353757356_2814974246335280439_n.jpg (36KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x480px

Really.

White slave owners are solely responsible for ruining the racial purity of the Thirteen colonies (that is after we made all the natives leave).

>>1998016
Brah, if you commit violence against a non-combatant population in an effort to intimidate them, that's terrorism.

State terrorism is a thing.

When Saddam dumped Scuds all over his enemies cities, that was an act of terrorism.

When Gaddafi had his intelligence officers plant a bomb in a disco full of US soldiers, that was terrorism.

You're so spooked it's uncanny.

>implying John Brown was anything but a hero

>implying terrorism hasn't always been good and legitimate

wew

>>1998027
>if you commit violence against a non-combatant population in an effort to intimidate them, that's terrorism.
That's your opinion talking. I'm going by a definition you'll find in ethics classes at universities and in various written sources. I'm not your 'brah,' stop insinuating that I am.
>When Saddam dumped Scuds all over his enemies cities, that was an act of terrorism.
When he invaded Kuwait, it was an act of war. There's an important distinction that you're failing to draw. The Kurds weren't slaves, stop drawing false equivalences. I really don't see any reason to think that you're doing anything other than emoting.
>spooked
Nice non-argument.

>>1998035
>I'm going by a definition you'll find in ethics classes at universities and in various written sources

So am I, brah.

There's no unified definition.

I'm using the original definition that the people who invented the word used, and a definition that is still widely used today.

You still haven't explained to me why using terror as a central part of a political strategy isn't terrorism.

I mean, if you used urban centers as the main form of housing, that would be urbanism. If you used factories to get rich, that would be industrialism.

>>1998044
>There's no unified definition.
So why should I accept yours?
>You still haven't explained to me why using terror as a central part of a political strategy isn't terrorism.
You haven't explained why the threat of force and terrorism are the same thing. A lot of people don't rob convenience stores because they're afraid the police will shoot them. The cop isn't a terrorist in this situation. Maybe there isn't even a cop in the store or on the block. This is a form of control and a way of recognizing and responding to authority. It's just stupid-I mean this, it impedes analysis-to equate all of these things under the label 'terrorism.
Your utopian stateless society that can have a perfectly law-abiding citizenry without anybody enforcing the law will never exist, so shut the fuck up about it before you even bring it up.

>>1998060
Well, if the cops randomly shot a black person every time that a convenience store was robbed, that would be terrorism.

It denotes using force against noncombatants in an effort to intimidate the broader population of civilians.

It's a perfectly reasonable, useful distinction. When anarchists throw a stick of dynamite into an opera house, they're doing the same thing that a government does when it tortures a dissident.

If governments can't be terrorists, then how come they can terrorize people. Is the act of terrorizing people not terrorism?

It's terrorism when you lose and it's revolution when you win

>>1998079
>Well, if the cops randomly shot a black person every time that a convenience store was robbed, that would be terrorism.

I'm literally laughing. That's a hilarious generalization and people like you are the reason I have no problem with thinking that BLM is retarded.
>It denotes using force against noncombatants
This only applies in a combat situation. A master beating a slave isn't entering combat with him. He's beating him. A bully isn't entering combat, he's bullying. Again, you can't act like all violence is the same in all contexts. Right and wrong exist. The initiation of the use of force is immoral, and my point is that a thief who steals a product from a convenience store and picks a fight with a cop or resists arrest takes his fate into his own hands, knowing that he is a citizen of the state he's in and has obligations to its other citizens that involve following laws.
If you don't know how to follow laws, then you should be physically removed from civilized society.

>>1998080
This, it's not hard to understand. Once your revolution is over and you're in charge of a legitimate state, you have to put people in prison. Anarchism is untenable.

File: deus vult.png (999KB, 1040x826px) Image search: [Google]

999KB, 1040x826px

>>1998090

Has no one really addressed the problem with the fact that greedy white slave owners in the 1700's is why we have shitty ghettos in the USA today?

Had they only used white indentured servants we would have kept white purity a thing in the United States.

Really. We shouldn't be supporting the slave owners. We should have taken their slaves away and shipped them back to Africa.

>>1998102
>Has no one really addressed the problem with the fact that greedy white slave owners in the 1700's is why we have shitty ghettos in the USA today?

Why would that be necessary when the principle is the legitimacy of laws regarding the ownership of individuals by individuals, not the economic or racial impact of slavery.

>>1998110
The principle was always the economic impact.

The South did it because it made them money, the North put a stop to it because it threatened free labor.

>>1998113
>The principle was always the economic impact.
I'm talking about laws, though. The legitimacy of a state isn't determined by its ability to produce the most efficient economy.

>>1998090
>This only applies in a combat situation

A bomber leaving some goodies in the trash can at a mall isn't combat.

In fact, combat and terrorism are literally mutually exclusive. If they're fighting back, it's warfare, not terrorism.

I think Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown deserved it, and the police in the US aren't terrorists.

But a master whipping his slaves is engaged in terrorism. Responding to a slave revolt by killing all of the area's negroes is terrorism. Killing a slaves family because he killed his master is terrorism.

>>1998102
>We should have taken their slaves away and shipped them back to Africa.
We almost did. That was literally Lincoln's plan for what happened after the Civil War, and that same plan got him shot because poor Southerners could not stand the idea of wealthy (disproportionately but not entirely Jewish) men being unable to use slaves or people who might as well be slaves to drive them out of business.

Every """""""""Rebel"""""""""" who hates niggers and hates Lincoln is subhuman.

>>1998117
That might have been true for Britain when they banned slavery in their empire, but in the US, it was always about the money.

File: 1460171376452.jpg (478KB, 2000x1026px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 2000x1026px

>>1998110

Laws are dumb when they do stupid things.

Sure it was legal to destroy the makeup of society like Germany is doing with immigrants now, but is it the right thing to do?

Sometimes laws are written by stupid men or by smart people doing stupid things.

Slavery may have been 100% legal, but the importation of millions of blacks into the United States has historically proven to be a bad move.

Really. If you had a time machine, wouldn't you go back into the 1700's and show them videos of what goes on in the inner cities of Chicago and Detroit?

Really.

>>1998122
>But a master whipping his slaves is engaged in terrorism. Responding to a slave revolt by killing all of the area's negroes is terrorism. Killing a slaves family because he killed his master is terrorism.
The first case is categorically different from the second and third, though. Is it terrorism if a teacher puts a student in detention? Was it terrorism when teachers used to use physical punishment on students?
It's a matter of legitimate authority. A master and a slave are in a relationship, codified in law, which permits the former to discipline the latter using physical force.

>>1998126
Did you even read my post?
>>1998129
>Laws are dumb when they do stupid things.
Laws don't do things, states do, and while I agree that no state is perfect, I don't think that perfection is involved in the definition of a legitimate state. Human error is already accounted for here. Stop moving goalposts.
>Really. If you had a time machine, wouldn't you go back into the 1700's and show them videos of what goes on in the inner cities of Chicago and Detroit?
Why would I encourage black genocide?

>>1998132
You really aren't going to make slavery work without violence against the civilian populace though.

If you look at any society with widespread slavery, they're burning people alive or shit like that to send a message to the others not to try anything.

Violence against noncombatants is a central part of chattel slavery.

>>1998140
It's not genocide if you're showing them why they shouldn't bring Blacks over. Or are you saying not enslaving people is genocide, or even bad? Has Progressivism come full circle again, where we Anglo-Americans are the superior race and must civilize the subhuman barbarians by force?

>>1998140

It was perfectly legal in Roman times to put Christians in the coliseum to be eaten by lions.

And the Romans were pretty legitimate.

Still that doesn't answer the core problem... Slave owners are responsible for the conditions in inner city Detroit and Chicago.

Every white slave owner that ever lived is responsible for every white person who dies at the hand of a black.

>>1998140
The legitimacy of a democratic state is determined by popular consent.

Popular consent almost exclusively belongs to whoever can produce the best economic outcomes.

You can't separate the two in any meaningful way.

>>1998132
Where does legitimate authority come from?

What makes authority illegitimate?

>>1998142
>You really aren't going to make slavery work without violence against the civilian populace though.
I never said you aren't, you fucking moron. I've been claiming that violence against civilians can be justified. Police forces exist to use violence against civilians and to apprehend them.
>If you look at any society with widespread slavery, they're burning people alive or shit like that to send a message to the others not to try anything.
Look at modern America, where criminals have to be shot to keep other people from breaking the law. The system only breaks down when people start pretending that a legal system that doesn't use force to maintain its legitimacy can or does exist.

>>1998149
In the US legal system, police are to use the force necessary to effect an arrest.

The question isn't the use of force, it's the use of physical violence as a punishment rather than a method.

Using violence, such as torture and killing, against people who aren't fighting back, in the aim of intimidating other people, is terrorism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

>>1998143
>It's not genocide if you're showing them why they shouldn't bring Blacks over. Or are you saying not enslaving people is genocide, or even bad? Has Progressivism come full circle again, where we Anglo-Americans are the superior race and must civilize the subhuman barbarians by force?
>>1998143
>Has Progressivism come full circle again, where we Anglo-Americans are the superior race and must civilize the subhuman barbarians by force?
Yes.
>>1998145
>Still that doesn't answer the core problem... Slave owners are responsible for the conditions in inner city Detroit and Chicago.
No they aren't. Slave owners and slave traders are different people. Blacks migrated North after they were freed, and the former slave owners didn't order them to move to industrial centers where they would do no economic good for the South.
>>1998147
I'm not talking about democratic states exclusively. I'm talking about legitimate states. The idea that only democracies can be legitimate implies that we ought to invade the Arabian peninsula and that the Chinese are doing nothing wrong in Tibet, and that the UK ought to abolish the monarchy. I don't buy it.
>>1998148
Authority comes from recognition by other states. No state is legitimate outside of a network of international relations in which a distinction between domestic and foreign affairs can be drawn.

>>1998160
If we could invade the Arabian peninsula and impose our own form of government onto them without incurring any cost to ourselves, that would be the best thing to do morally.

That isn't just me saying that, that's right there in the UDHR, that the only legitimate form of government is that which respects civil rights. Democratic systems are the only form that don't systematically abuse civil rights.

>>1998156
>In the US legal system, police are to use the force necessary to effect an arrest.

If a guy draws a gun on a cop or charges him with a knife, or even charges him at all after he's been told that he's under arrest, then there's literally no reason the cop shouldn't defend himself with whatever force seems necessary to protect his own wellbeing.
>Muh state terrorism
I'm literally only talking about cases in which violence has been initiated against a police officer. Get the fuck out of here with your disingenuous arguments.
>>>reddit
>>>/leftypol/
>>>/facebook/

>>1998160

Are you on crack?

If blacks weren't imported into North America in the millions then we wouldn't have the modern problems that we have today.

Really I'm talking with an autist here.

On the one hand he supports slavery and yet he openly supports the destruction of western civilization due to the destruction of white race.

>>1998160
Legitimate authority is only legitimate because of the consensus of states? That seems like a shaky foundation upon which to base a legal/moral code.

The consensus of States changes. For a thread-appropriate example, see the changing status of slavery across Europe, which by 1850 was universally abhorred, but was perfectly fine in the 18th century.

>>1997935
/thread

>>1998165
>that would be the best thing to do morally.
Am I literally arguing with an unrepentant neoconservative?
What about the cost in human lives? How many soldiers would die and how many civilians would die in a war to turn Arabia into a democracy? How many have already died everywhere else in the region? I really don't think your case makes much sense, even with your vague citation of the UDHR.

>>1998168
Exactly.

A cop defending himself isn't terrorism.

A cop shooting a fleeing felon under the fleeing felon rule isn't a terrorist.

If a cop acted like the Salvadorian ones did in the 80s and massacred an entire neighborhood as a warning to the others, that's terrorism.

>>1998171
>If blacks weren't imported into North America in the millions
Do you not understand that not all slave owners were slave traders? The traders were the ones who actually shipped them over. It's stupid, anyway, I don't enjoy dealing in counterfactuals. Are you going to start blaming the Jews now that I've said that?
>>1998172
>The consensus of States changes.
Yes, that's entirely fine. I've never said anything contradictory to this.

>>1998180
This anon is correct, although he skirts around making his point succinctly. Terrorism is the conscious acting in such a manner so as to elicit terror/fear from a population in order to achieve political goals.

>>1998177
>How many soldiers would die and how many civilians would die in a war to turn Arabia into a democracy?

That's why we don't do it.

You're not even dealing with a neoconservative, I'm way more extreme than that.

I literally believe that all actions are good or evil solely based on whether they're likely to result in democracy becoming more prevalent.

My pet theory is that the world will eventually be 100% democracy or 100% totalitarianism, because those are the two most stable forms of government, and that until every major power is a democracy, the democracies need to do everything they possibly can to push the outcome towards the first one.

Besides that, these are all man made definitions.

>>1998184

Slave owners could have shipped their slaves back to Africa, but they chose to keep making money off them.

Their greed spelled the doom of the white race in America.

>>1998189
Bruh, black people are only like 10% of the US population, and they've been stable around that level forever.

Now Hispanics, and sub-replacement white fertility, there's some doom.

>>1998180
I'm glad we agree.

>>1998184
But if you accept that the consensus of States change, at which tipping point does an authority become illegitimate? Once three states encourage similar behaviour? Five?

>>1998187
>I literally believe that all actions are good or evil solely based on whether they're likely to result in democracy becoming more prevalent.
In this day and age, you're a neoconservative.
>My pet theory is that the world will eventually be 100% democracy or 100% totalitarianism
This is a pretty shit dichotomy that doesn't even give the individual the time of day without demonizing him.

>>1998197
Usually at the end of a war or the signing of a treaty. It's great, you can actually find the document where the English Crown recognized the USA as independent.

>>1998200
Well, those two forms of government are the most stable ones for an industrialized human society.

In the modern era, it's been extremely rare for a mature democracy to revert to another system, and it's been extremely rare for totalitarian states to fall to revolutions.

All other things being equal, democracies will support democracies, and totalitarian states will support totalitarian states.

I think that efforts like the Iraq War and Vietnam War have been ineffective at advancing the goal of expanding democratic hegemony.

If there's an obvious low hanging fruit like Noriega or Gaddafi, we should go for it, but for the most part, we should concentrate on improving rule of law in countries that are democratic on paper, and countering the influence of major totalitarian powers, which I'm throwing China into, because I refuse to use words the way other people do.

>>1998206
>it's been extremely rare for totalitarian states to fall to revolutions.
Did you miss the late 80's and early 90's?
>I think that efforts like the Iraq War and Vietnam War have been ineffective at advancing the goal of expanding democratic hegemony.
And yet you advocate wars for democracy regardless of human life.
>If there's an obvious low hanging fruit like Noriega or Gaddafi,
>Gaddafi
Lybia is a real democracy now, sure, you fucking faggot.
I guess CTR is still out in force. Or is this actually Hilldawg herself?

>>1998202
???
That seems like a complete non-sequitur.

>>1998206
>>1998208
Going to bed, I may come back in the morning if I'm still in the mood for /leftypol/'s antics but I also may not.

>>1998213
Think about it for a minute ;)

>>1998208
See, the 80s and 90s were something that could only happen because of the strong opposition that NATO posed to the USSR.

Because no similar force was arrayed against the PRC, and the PRC had a better managed economy, they maintained their system.

And Russia itself reverted to autocracy after less than a decade.

It looks like democracy is winning, but things are far from over. The PRC is set to become the world's largest economy, and the US and EU are suffering from profound internal problems.

I don't think that democracy = good makes you a neocon. Neoconservative is a doctrine about how the US should use force, which I don't agree with.

But I think almost all Americans would say democracy > national sovereignty of other countries, and prefer democracy all other things being equal. The real question is how much should be sacrificed in the pursuit of democracy.

>>1998206
>t's been extremely rare for totalitarian states to fall to revolutions
Is this trolling?

>>1997871
When I first learned about it in school. It's illogical and mind boggling how so many view people like John Brown as a hero. 9/11 could've been committed in the name of equality, social justice or some other bullshit meme and there would be droves of Americans supporting it. Absolutely absurd I tell you.

File: 10080771.jpg (37KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 960x540px

>>1998245
Terrorism is fine when it supports me
t. Most people

I was just thinking....

Nazis had won election and where legitimate government.

Were they right to put Jews in camps because they had legitimacy?

Would Jews taking up guns and shooting concentration camp guards be terrorists?

>>1998245

So you'd be all for using slave owner money to send them all back to Africa?