1
1
0
Or better yet, how long before protesters start committing acts of violence just like terrorists?
We refuse to negotiate with terrorists..
We negotiate and listen to protesters...
Activism, or activists can commit acts which are not currently considered rerrorism...is it possible to assemble peacefully but under the very veil of freedom commit acts that border on terrorism.
What comes to mind is Internet hackers, or Hacktivists (group Anonymous), they can disrupt, block communication, threaten, and possibly use their talents to create new grassroot movements or incite riots and perpetuate violence.
Where do we draw the line on protesting vs. protesting with violence? Is one a right and the other acceptable but borders on the fringe, should we label the extreme form of activism with a different label...perhaps domestic terrorism?
If you've witnessed a peaceful protest that went awry, what are your feeling/thought? Other examples are the LA Riots / Race riots of the late 60's / Katrina / Nation-wide Occupy Movement. And more recently: Ferguson, Missouri are just other examples....is this form of activism acfeptable? Should it be , should the US military intervene in these scenarios?
We refuse to negotiate with terrorists..
We negotiate and listen to protesters...
Activism, or activists can commit acts which are not currently considered rerrorism...is it possible to assemble peacefully but under the very veil of freedom commit acts that border on terrorism.
What comes to mind is Internet hackers, or Hacktivists (group Anonymous), they can disrupt, block communication, threaten, and possibly use their talents to create new grassroot movements or incite riots and perpetuate violence.
Where do we draw the line on protesting vs. protesting with violence? Is one a right and the other acceptable but borders on the fringe, should we label the extreme form of activism with a different label...perhaps domestic terrorism?
If you've witnessed a peaceful protest that went awry, what are your feeling/thought? Other examples are the LA Riots / Race riots of the late 60's / Katrina / Nation-wide Occupy Movement. And more recently: Ferguson, Missouri are just other examples....is this form of activism acfeptable? Should it be , should the US military intervene in these scenarios?
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 6
5
5
0
Activism vs terrorism can get complicated very quickly but it does not have to be:
- Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
- Activism: the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.
- The former involves illegal activity while the latter involves legal activity. Activism crosses the line when it becomes or involves illegal activity. That is where we do or should draw the line as a society. When the line is crossed, it should be prosecuted at the governmental level and condemned at the individual level.
- Fallout from the Paris attacks are a good example. The conversation is revolving around our right of free speech. That is a no brainer and the French government has and will take action. Very little conversation about how people will now self censor their conversations and speech because they do not want to be killed by Islamic terrorists. The effect, therefore that these individuals wanted to create has already happened and is having an effect in their favor.
- Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
- Activism: the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.
- The former involves illegal activity while the latter involves legal activity. Activism crosses the line when it becomes or involves illegal activity. That is where we do or should draw the line as a society. When the line is crossed, it should be prosecuted at the governmental level and condemned at the individual level.
- Fallout from the Paris attacks are a good example. The conversation is revolving around our right of free speech. That is a no brainer and the French government has and will take action. Very little conversation about how people will now self censor their conversations and speech because they do not want to be killed by Islamic terrorists. The effect, therefore that these individuals wanted to create has already happened and is having an effect in their favor.
(5)
(0)
SFC Walter Mack
I agree completely, Sir. There are a lot of 'rights' that can be taken away by fear.
When you think about it, there's a lot of things we're free to say here in America, but you'll pay a hefty price if you do. Free speech isn't always free, and PC has destroyed free speech as much or more than the threat of terrorism. Would that mean that our own love of PC as Americans is akin to a form of terrorism? I know there's many things I don't say out of a certain level of fear, not including the obvious things I cannot say as a service member.
When you think about it, there's a lot of things we're free to say here in America, but you'll pay a hefty price if you do. Free speech isn't always free, and PC has destroyed free speech as much or more than the threat of terrorism. Would that mean that our own love of PC as Americans is akin to a form of terrorism? I know there's many things I don't say out of a certain level of fear, not including the obvious things I cannot say as a service member.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I don’t believe that illegal activity is a good place to draw the line between activism and terrorism. One can be an activist and a criminal IMO, without being a terrorist. An activist who unlawfully obstructs bulldozers from clearing a forest may be a criminal… however I would not call them a terrorist. I would draw the line at threats of physical violence on civilian persons. The activist who pours salt in the gas tanks of bulldozers would be a criminal activist. The activist who blew up a bulldozer and injured civilians would be a terrorist.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
Can't say that I disagree with SSG Mark Colwell. Picture our freedoms as individual bublbes around ourselves. Generally we are free to do what we want as long as our bubles don't bump into each other and as long as we are not conducting criminal behavior within our own bubble. When the bubbles bump into each other then we as a society have to determine which bubble takes priority. For example, in our society a Muslims freedom of religion does not override my freedom of speech. Thus I am allowed to draw a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed if I so chose. I have the right to do so but I may chose not to out of respect for the Muslim. One of the key points of terrorism is intimidation to achieve their ends.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Good question, SSG(P) (Join to see). It made me think of the old story about yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater. We have freedom of speech, but some speech is out of bounds.
Similarly, activists who incite violence need to be held accountable. There was some talk of an investigation into Michael Brown's step-father, when he yelled (I'm paraphrasing), "Burn this ***** down" in Ferguson, and then the protesters proceeded to set buildings on fire. The family claimed there was no connection between what he yelled and what they did, but it's a close call, I'd say.
As for military involvement ... I see this more as a civilian law enforcement issue. I guess there could be examples, in the cyber realm, for example, where we might get involved. And even in Ferguson the National Guard was mobilized to help keep the peace, so I guess the military was involved there. Still, first and foremost, I see it as a civilian law enforcement matter.
Similarly, activists who incite violence need to be held accountable. There was some talk of an investigation into Michael Brown's step-father, when he yelled (I'm paraphrasing), "Burn this ***** down" in Ferguson, and then the protesters proceeded to set buildings on fire. The family claimed there was no connection between what he yelled and what they did, but it's a close call, I'd say.
As for military involvement ... I see this more as a civilian law enforcement issue. I guess there could be examples, in the cyber realm, for example, where we might get involved. And even in Ferguson the National Guard was mobilized to help keep the peace, so I guess the military was involved there. Still, first and foremost, I see it as a civilian law enforcement matter.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I think you run into two issues here, the "spirit" of the protest and the "effect" of the protest. In most cases, there is a legitimate base for the protest. There is injustice and it is bad enough that there are those able to see it and feel it and they wish to see it corrected. In the presence of such injustice, as defenders of the Constitution, some would say that the military is obligated to weigh in on the side of the protesters rather than the establishment.
Still, we are nation and observation of the "Rule of Law" is critical to smooth operations, not just for the establishment, but for the people.
Incidents in Ferguson, and else where, that have resulted in damage to property, as opposed to an inconvenience to the people, is as significant a problem as a system that creates injustice that needs to be protested.
I agree with CW5 (Join to see) that this is a civilian issue and it may be that the best resolution in many cases is a reworking of the laws and policies of enforcement that instigate the riots in the first place. However, power is never ceded easily... At what point is the balance of power so out of whack that we are given no choice but to "Burn this ****** down"?
Still, we are nation and observation of the "Rule of Law" is critical to smooth operations, not just for the establishment, but for the people.
Incidents in Ferguson, and else where, that have resulted in damage to property, as opposed to an inconvenience to the people, is as significant a problem as a system that creates injustice that needs to be protested.
I agree with CW5 (Join to see) that this is a civilian issue and it may be that the best resolution in many cases is a reworking of the laws and policies of enforcement that instigate the riots in the first place. However, power is never ceded easily... At what point is the balance of power so out of whack that we are given no choice but to "Burn this ****** down"?
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Burn down stores, homes, businesses? That only takes away from the people, some are too short sighted to see this...burn down the police station (In the case of Ferguson only) may have driven a point home. I fail too see the point...of needless crime, looting, arson, and even murder unless it is directed at changing a very specific situation. Our current laws and current administration actually condones demonstrations, so does this appeal to the left leaning liberals as well as the far leaning right tea partiers? The demonstrations regarding a police state, police abuse, overuse of deadly force....while it is a great idea....can easily go awry, and must be addressed by our current administration or they will only become more frequest, more intense, and more violent.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
I think you are taking me too literally. Homes and locally owned stores and business are critical elements of our communities. More so even than law enforcement and hospitals. Those who would burn those down are anarchists of the worst kind.
The police state, which ironically does not exist because of the police, but the politicians and corporations that written laws and rules that make the police a necessity to maintain the status quo, is what may need to burn if justice, the Spirit of America Justice, is to prevail.
When you see a state of affairs where an American military officer is sentenced to 20 years in Leavenworth for conduct in a war zone comparable to what police do routinely on American streets, we got a problem. When you have veterans joking about how much more effective they would have been if the same ROE of American law enforcement had been extended to combat zones, we got a problem. We are already our own worst enemy, there is a problem.
The police state, which ironically does not exist because of the police, but the politicians and corporations that written laws and rules that make the police a necessity to maintain the status quo, is what may need to burn if justice, the Spirit of America Justice, is to prevail.
When you see a state of affairs where an American military officer is sentenced to 20 years in Leavenworth for conduct in a war zone comparable to what police do routinely on American streets, we got a problem. When you have veterans joking about how much more effective they would have been if the same ROE of American law enforcement had been extended to combat zones, we got a problem. We are already our own worst enemy, there is a problem.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google