| Frownland |
08-07-2021 09:16 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
(Post 2180742)
I'm not ruling it out but i find that hard to believe. If anyone threatened the multi billion dollar fossil fuel industry via terrorism i think they would become a target of the powers that be so much so that the oil companies themselves would not have to worry at all about the cost of security because they would have the full weight of the US military and other global powers backing them.
|
Historically that has also widely swayed public opinion in favour of the "terrorists".
Quote:
I'm very skeptical that you can scare people out of making billions of dollars.
|
Scare em to death. There aren't that many.
Quote:
well in my mind the only way to morally rationalize terrorism is to say it serves a greater good... So if the results are that things get worse instead then it doesn't matter to me what your motivations were, it's still condemnable because you made things worse not better. If you wanna say ah but the oil companies/govts/etc have more blood on their hands then fine. That in no way makes the terrorism more justified.
|
Blaming the victim. You recognize the government using an event as justification for a fascist takeover as valid while rejecting any motivations for an ecoterrorist assassination as justified. Pretty obvious which conclusion you're working backwards from there.
Quote:
I'm rejecting the idea that terrorism is justified
|
On the basis that the government existing to protect corporate interests is a valid starting point, which is the crux of neoliberalism.
Quote:
And what I'm saying is that if i had any faith at all in the terrorists actually making things better then the question would be much more difficult to answer. I might be more sympathetic if i thought they could. So to me you cannot separate whether or not it's worth condemning from the consequences it has. The consequences are the main reason i oppose terrorists in the first place.
|
Then you understand why I don't have any faith in asking nicely. |
