[bananabreakfast]

It's chilling how quickly radical terrorist groups have coalesced around using social media to coordinate their hatred and their attacks. A scant few years ago, America actively fought terrorists instead of encouraging and facilitating them.

[dang]

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. Can you please not do that? It's against the rules (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and it's the line across which we start banning accounts (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...), regardless of which politics they're battling for. This is because it destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation on a wide range of topics.

If there are other accounts doing this, I'd like to know who they are (irrespective of which politics they're for or against). It's impossible for us to look at the history of every account posting like this, but this is a serious problem and it's getting worse, so we're raising the bar.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[hetspookjee]

Off topic but I'm having increasingly more difficulty with the term Terrorist. How'd you call American intrusions in sovereign states? Just somewhat recently the drone strike of the General Soleimani on sovereign grounds were an act of terrorism if perceived through the eyes of most Iranians, and possibly Iraqis as the strike was on their ground. Terrorist is a term that is stretched and applied beyond meaning.

[bananabreakfast]

I would define terrorism as forced coercion of an outside group (or group perceived to be "outside") through violent actions. Controlling through fear. So yes, any assassination, and especially that one, would be terrorism. However, terrorism committed by independent actors makes them terrorists, but terrorism committed by the state is more appropriately classified as military aggression, or acts of war.

The whole point of the military doing anything short of all out war is to scare an "enemy" into compliance through threat of violence. So it's not classified as terrorism for the same reason as lethal action by police is not murder. The blessing of the state changes its definition.

[guerrilla]

That's not the standard understanding: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

[saiya-jin]

We all know how things are - the world is not a fair place. It never was, and so far its rigged in a way that it never will be. Strong oppress the weak. Skillful strong oppress in a way that weak don't even notice but that's another topic. The word terrorist currently means 'enemy of me', if me is state powerful enough to project its power on others. US took any other meaning internationally from this word over last 17 years pretty effectively.

If you actively object the biggest military in the world, there is no safe place on this planet. A country that effectively uses black op sites to do torture on suspects that would be illegal back home, a country that actively uses a prison to indefinitely detain (and torture) suspects without any legal process (and so on and on... really, there are whole books about this), has absolutely 0 issues with bombing some enemy general. It can be even in the centre of Brusel for all they care, if the benefits outweigh the cons. If they kill 50 kids along, all they do is try to minimize media damage. Do you see many americans shedding tears over this? From outside its pretty hard to spot any, and anybody who cares knows how things are.

Let's not pretend wars are something nice, fair and some gentlemanly approach is applied. Almost anything that works will be used.

[dmingod666]

See, the general assumption is. If its a white rich nation (except Russia) doing something, its moral. If its a rich ally of the said nations, its moral.

I doesn't matter what they do, commit war-crimes, liberate people from democracy(to free the people) and install dictators, fund terrorists, lie to the international community about wars, kill people in embassies, it doesn't matter. It is you who are at fault, for not being able to understand their deeper moral motives.

Everything that the enemy does, that is either illegal or it's just lies and propaganda to improve their image. They can do nothing right.

Now, With this context you can understand very clearly how to think and feel about who the terrorists are and who the bad guys are.

[airstrike]

Terrorism is committing violent acts targeting non-combatants for political goals

[throwaway316943]

That’s a bit loose. Terrorism aims to inspire terror, those violent acts have to be extreme and indiscriminate to do so.

[missedthecue]

That seems like the loose understanding between the two. Were the 1944 USAAF bombings of Krupp Stahl works terrorism? They would be according to your understanding.

[esperent]

For example, missiles from unmanned drones hitting civilian targets like schools and hospitals.

Note the statistics here [0] - of course the numbers are very fuzzy but at the worst case scenario it's 1:2.5 civilians: military targets. So for every 2.5 military targets, 1 civilian. That fits the bill for extreme and indiscriminate.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan

[jlawson]

Hitting is not the same as targeting, so no.

Also, one needs to indicate the difference between e.g. a hospital building acting as nothing but a hospital, and one that has been evacuated of patients and used as a militant staging post.

[seisvelas]

This reminded me of the song "Pirates & Emperors", which you might enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8

Too long, didn't listen: If you rob with a little ship, you're a "pirate", but if you steal with a big fleet, thou art "emperor".

[hetspookjee]

Thanks. I really appreciate the link. Especially the reference to duck typing, haha.

[cirgue]

Uuuuuuuum, that is emphatically not the parallel you want to draw here. We did fuck all to prevent extremism from metastasizing and set the Middle East on a course to be a shatter belt for our lifetimes and likely that of our kids. We also killed a bunch of civilians and terrorism was used as a pretext for a hell of a lot of pretty racist policies. Having power means you have to be the grownup in the room. It sucks but the choice is that or a kind of repression that strengthens the grievances of the people you’re supposed to be fighting. The way terrorists work, when they’re successful, is by leveraging the overreaction of their adversary to win adherents, resources, and eventually legitimacy. We can’t let that happen again, we can’t let that happen here, and we sure as hell can’t let it happen with white supremacists.

[eplanit]

Are you referring to Antifa and BLM, who also organized on FB and Twitter during 2020, too?

[bananabreakfast]

You mean the fictitious boogeyman "group" that not one member has ever been identified and the movement for black rights that was widely brutalized by the police?

I suppose not, seeing as one is a fantasy and the other clearly had the police paying attention to their plans. Besides, neither has attempted a coup to overturn an election so it's not really the same is it?

[yonaguska]

Do you honestly believe that Antifa is not real?

[ceejayoz]

"Real" and "worth pissing your pants over" aren't quite the same.

[core-questions]

Why does that same description not apply to their adversaries?

[ceejayoz]

When antifa storms the Capitol and gets Congressional representation (i.e. folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene), do let me know.

[dragonwriter]

Antifa is real, but not an organization.

[dylan-m]

Antifa are Facebook's version of Anonymous.

[Gibbon1]

Antifa is a very minor left wing subculture centered around protests.

[dghlsakjg]

I honestly believe that antifa is not an organized entity. Antifa exists as a vaguely defined concept around the idea of counterprotesting right-wing groups. Its the same thing as the alt-right, an ill-defined idea that can be whatever bogeyman you want it to be to whoever you want to scare.

This is the problem. You asked if people really don't believe that antifa is real. Obviously it is real in some sense since we are talking about something called antifa, but we have no idea if you are thinking of the bogeyman organization that doesn't exist, and I am thinking of a philosophy of counterprotest.

When people talk about 'getting rid of antifa' there's a reason that so many people on the left laugh. It's because there is a false conception on the right that it is some sort of unified organization like the ACLU or NRA where you can literally be a card carrying member. People on the left understand that there is no such thing, it is just an ill-defined idea.

[tomcam]

How is it that this fictitious bogeyman group has managed to take over portions of Seattle, get two people killed in Seattle, and spend months burning down neighborhoods in Seattle and Portland?

[core-questions]

Easy, my friend. All it has to do is deny its existence, and ensure that this denial is reflected up and down the stack. Under such cover, it can do anything, and blame anything that goes wrong on its opponents.

[baggachipz]

Oh right, I forgot about the part where "Antifa" or the BLM protests ended in them infiltrating the United States Capitol, killing guards with fire extinguishers and american flags, stole laptops from members of congress and attempted to sell them to Russia, and were wearing literal Nazi propaganda and claiming a revolution.

[zaroth]

An angry mob surrounded the White House and tried to burn down the Church of the Presidents on May 31, 2020.

Trump had to shelter in the bunker, but he was just a coward, and the people were just demanding justice.

> Then came darkness, and with it, another night of mayhem. In the park, protesters faced the familiar pop, pop, pop of pepper bullets and stinging clouds of tear gas meant to push back hundreds of them as they tried, again and again, to break through the police barricades set up around President Trump’s home.

> Later, American flags and parked cars and buildings were lit ablaze — including St. John’s Church, a historic landmark opened in 1816 and attended by every president since James Madison. Firefighters quickly extinguished the basement fire, which police said was intentionally set.

Protesters then, as on Jan 6th, tried to entice officers to take their side;

> A black officer, according to witnesses, briefly took a knee in solidarity with the protesters, who cheered.

> Not long after, another officer made an announcement on a megaphone: “Attention: We will continue to move back unless you break the police line.”

> And again, cheering from the protesters, many of whom appeared to want the officers to join them rather than fight with them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/politics/washington-dc...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-braces-for-third-day...

[Amezarak]

This is the biggest downer of our time to me. The media/elite control of the narrative is astounding and nearly ironclad - and as best I can tell social media is just being used to reinforce it.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if white supremacists performed those same actions, it would be described as a violent terroristic insurrection.

[selimthegrim]

None of that was linked to transfer of power or an election

[Amezarak]

You don’t think attacking the elected head of state is related to a transfer of power? At least 11 Secret Service agents had to be hospitalized after they defended the WH and President from angry rioters...how on earth is that materially different from January 6? Suppose they had succeeded in breaking through the line?

What exactly is so sacrosanct about elections that disputing them is an insurrection, but not storming Senate chambers to stop a Supreme Court confirmation, trying to storm the WH, or literally declaring an autonomous zone not subject to the US government?

It’s hard for me to understand how this is not simply nit picking some insubstantial detail and using it to put the things we like on one side and the things we don’t like on another. Never mind that the election nor the integrity thereof were ever remotely threatened by these riots.

[themgt]

Yeah, I was reflecting back on that incident where BLM tried to breach the White House barriers. It was widely seen as a moment of weakness for Trump and opportunity to dunk on him for lying about it, and protests themselves described in supportive tone "Protesters have turned the newly constructed White House fence into a living memorial to racial justice"[0] / passive voice "started relatively cheerfully ... "tensions between protesters and police mounted ... multiple fires broke out near the White House late on Sunday evening etc etc." not like "an angry mob was about to try to storm the White House and that's bad"[1]

In fact these were really violent, dangerous protests and god knows what would have happened if they had breached the fences. Likely a lot of dead protestors and a major regime legitimacy crisis.

The night prior, more than 60 Secret Service personnel were injured from thrown bricks, rocks, bottles and fireworks, officials said.

"Secret Service personnel were also directly physically assaulted as they were kicked, punched, and exposed to bodily fluids," the Secret Service said. "A total of 11 injured employees were transported to a local hospital and treated for non-life threatening injuries."[1]

It's impossible to play the counterfactual, but I have to believe months of extremely violent political protests being tacitly allowed/encouraged sent a signal to many in the country that violent political protests are ok or even good, or at least what the other side has coming to them.

[0] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/white-house-fence-bl...

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/fires-light-...

[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/george-floyd-protest-updates-joe-b...

[tomcam]

No they didn’t. Look at the damage done to Seattle and Portland with the full cooperation of Twitter and Facebook.

[chandra381]

I've never understood this "what-about-ism". I see it as a bad faith tactic of deflecting attention from one issue to another, when the person doing it knows exactly how bad and indefensible their chosen stance is, and is trying to downplay it. I think it would be vocal to see why this OP is so instinctively fixated on BLM, Seattle and Portland and not on the Capitol attack. What does this reveal about the OP's own biases and what and whom they consider important?

[titzer]

I missed the part where BLM advocated overthrowing democracy. At worst they advocated to defund police and held obnoxious signs. And despite the right wing narrative, the people carrying signs and doing sit ins were not the ones rioting and looting, but rather getting their ass beat by police.

[zionic]

What do you call CHAZ? Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?

[titzer]

You mean that thing[1]

> The zone was a self-organized space, without official leadership. Protesters united behind three main demands:

> 1. cut Seattle's $409 million police budget by 50 percent,

> 2. shift funding to community programs and services in historically black communities, and

> 3. ensure that protesters would not be charged with crimes.

Is that what you meant?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone

[CivBase]

None of those points take away from it being "a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government".

If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified? I certainly don't think so.

[titzer]

> If we get a more transparent and verifiable election system in light of (or perhaps in spite of) the assault on capitol hill, then is it somehow justified?

I don't think anyone should be screaming to melt down the government or set up their own, but let's be clear there is a difference in both degree and kind from BLM to the Capitol Insurrection: BLM protestors were driven by actual instances of racism--dozens, if not hundreds of people killed by police--and fundamentally wanted accountability for that blatant police misconduct, and Capitol Insurrectionists were driven by nothing more than lies and wanted to assassinate the legislative branch and install a dictator. We both know that "more transparency" and a "more verifiable" election system isn't going to make the crazies go away. They rejected election results outright because there must have been fraud.

[tomcam]

Do you mind if I self organize some people to take over the place you live?

[dragonwriter]

> What do you call CHAZ?

The popular view of it, especially on the Right? A fiction deliberately constructed by right-wing media (notably Fox News) and the Trump Administration.

> Wasn’t it fully supported by BLM

BLM isn’t a single, unified organization, so “fully supported by BLM” isn’t a meaningful phrase. The protests which spawned what was briefly called (by unknown persons) CHAZ before being renamed the Capitol Hill Organized Protest specifically to emphatically repudiate the implication of seditious intent were organized in part by activists identifying with the BLM movement.

> and a literal sedition zone against the democratically elected government?

Nope. Fairly good discussion here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/15/dont-liste...

[monoideism]

OK, but what about attacking a federal courthouse for several weeks straight in Portland? All cases had to be moved to another site in a neighboring state. I don't think they should be charged with sedition, but it clearly fits the statute, which states:

"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire [...] to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States"

Using violent attacks and arson to force a federal courthouse to close down would seem to fit that definition.

While it's true that the reason the mob attacked the Capitol was arguably worse, both antifa and the Trump mob attacked federal buildings and tried to harm those guarding them.

Also, regarding your source: our media has sadly divided into two, so no resource you list will convince anyone.

Either they already read the resource, and so already agree with you, or they don't read it and know better than to trust it, since it's a partisan source.

We would all do better to stop encouraging open partisanship among the media, and reward non-partisan perspectives. NB: this doesn't have to mean non-opinionated perspectives, although those should be clearly labeled as editorials (now, editorials have blended with news).

[tomcam]

The founders of BLM are “trained Marxists“ in their own words. By definition, they advocate overthrowing democracy. That’s what Marxism is all about.

[zionic]

Wait, are you praising the era that gave us the “patriot” act and Waco?

[efwfwef]

It's chilling how we moved the blame from books and video games to social networks, wondering what will be next, VR?

[refurb]

It amazing how the same people saying “terrorism is overblown” a few years back are jumping on the “terrorism is threatening our republic” bandwagon.