Skip to main content

View Diary: “Protesters Take Over US Trade Rep Building, Expose Secret Negotiations,” by Kevin Zeese (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK, much like the rules governing domestic (11+ / 0-)

    surveillance, there's the real definition, which is what you just gave me.

    Then there's the operative definition, which appears to be constantly shifting and often shrouded in some misty substance--clouds? fog? smoke?

    I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 03:21:29 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That definition would actually refer to every (3+ / 0-)

      government ever.

      •  Quite possibly, but I'd argue there are degrees (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, DocGonzo, elwior

        of irritating heinosity.

        I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 05:55:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bygorry, AoT

        The sad fact is that practically every government has and does keep and maintain power ultimately by force. It's at the core of libertarian complaints about government coercion, and their deluded attraction to a mythical "free market" that is entirely voluntary and persuasion rather than coerced.

        We should understand what Mao did when he said "power comes from the barrel of a gun". That in fact government power is largely a form of terrorism. Until we understand that we can't do any better than that.

        And we can't understand that terrorism isn't going away soon, nor can we "fight it".

        The rise of overt terrorism, rather than the fairly recent submersion of it beneath friendlier but ultimately more superficial government practices, forces us to confront the terrorism that we never admitted.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Wed Sep 25, 2013 at 08:26:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  A terrorist is also a non-state actor. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orlbucfan, JerryNA, elwior, AoT

        The term properly refers to an individual or group that uses violence or the credible threat thereof to advance a political agenda.  When a government engages in the same activity, it's more properly considered war.  It may seem like splitting hairs, since the end result is the same - lots of dead people - but the distinction is important.

        •  The distinction is forced (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shliapnikov

          And it isn't just war that the government uses violence or the threat of violence for, it's also things like the police and other law enforcement. The reason states are exempt is because states make the laws so they can be exempt. Mostly governments just get called state sponsors. The US is one of the few governments to actually be convicted of sponsoring terrorism, in Nicaragua specifically.

          •  I'm with you on this one, AoT. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT

            this is where I agree with the anarchists. :-)

            I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 05:09:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site