Those are the “goodie” terrorists… The fascists!
He’s talking about the “baddie” terrorists… The antifascists!
Their goal is also to normalize political persecution through designating everything antifascist as a crime.
I am Spartacus!
This is the inevitable conclusion of decades of justifying endless violence by labeling people “terrorists”. The word has no meaning other than “target of the state”. And now the state is this.
“And now the state is this.”
"It was at dawn of Abril 25 of 1974, during the parade of Practical Cavalry School, in Santarém, that (Capitan) Salgueiro Maia uttered the famous speech:
’ Gentlemen, as everyone knows, there are various modalities of State.
The socialist States,
the capitalist States,
and the state we came to.
Well, in this solemn night, we will end the state we came to!
So, whoever wants to come with me, we go to Lisbon and we will end this.
Whoever is voluntary, go out, form up.
Whoever doesn’t want to go out, stay here.’Every 240 of those man that eard this words, spoken so firmly, so characteristic of Salgueiro Maia, formed up immediately in front of him.
Next they went to Lisbon and marched on the dictatorship. "
And with more and more military/citizens joining in through the day, they ended a 41 year old dictatorship that kept Portugal in poverty and ignorence.
Another great man, Commander Seixas Louça, of the frigate “Gago Coutinho” in the river Tejo,
going out to open waters to join a NATO mission, was order to go back up river, stand anchored in front of “Terreiro do Paço”,
(the open square and nevralgic center of Portugal, from where most of the ships went to the discoveries of globalisation more than 500 years before, and where the Ministries are today)AND ORDERED TO SHOOT on the city, on their brothers in arms and citizens, if the “movement” continued.
He refused. He did take the ship there, but didn’t anchor and pointed the guns up.The Wolrd needs more people like Capitan Salgueiro Maia and his 240, that knew when to take action,
and more like Commander Seixas Louça and his battleship of warriors that knew when not to take it, because they knew what war was, and that the “movement”, wasn’t it.The only good things about Antonio Salazar (Slytherin…yeah Rowling used his last name as the first name of the wizard) was (mostly) keeping Portugal out of the wars (mostly) and dying.
Certainly.my mother went to work in Lisbon this day and returned safe, no one died. My dad was enlisted overseas and returned home soon after. and a couple of years later, i was born. We still celebrate these heroes every year in our national Revolution day. I was fortunate to not have to know what living in a dictatorahip is
My grand mother was arriving in the city in a bus with my mother with 3 years old beside her and my aunt on her lap.
I had to leave some friends behind on the past years.
I listened to my grand mother. They didn’t listen to theirs.
terrorism
n 1: the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear
Well, kind of sounds like textbook terrorism. And to be clear, I’m cheering on these terrorists. This is terrorist on terrorist action and, in my opinion, a fair and fitting response.
If that’s the definition, then I think it’s textbook not at all terrorism. One of the standard definitions of violence, and the one that I agree with, is using force to hurt a person or living being. In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
The target is the company owned by Elon Musk, and he is a member of the government. In other words, the act of inflammation is a protest against the government, not against civilians.
It depends on the arsonist, but I don’t see these acts as ones that are designed to make people fear anything. Rather, they are designed to help people band together and fight against Elon Musk and his evil Nazi ways.
And then you’ve misidentified the goal. I think one of the goals, other than helping people band together, is to hurt Elon Musk’s company economically. Now you might argue that people want to inflict economic costs upon him because of related political goals, but now you’re getting into indirect reasoning, which would allow you to argue that anything, any act at all, or not acting in the first place, counts as terrorism.
Assume I somehow manage to blow up that obelisk in Washington DC. Would you consider this terrorism, even if no person got hurt?
The relative risk of trying to do that is such that you are highly likely to injure someone. If no one got hurt in that type of attack, it’s by sheer luck.
Also, not a soul thinks people attacking unpurchased vehicles is a threat to escalate to hurting people.
It’s a crime, but not everything is ‘terrorism’.
What about something different, farther away from civilian population centers being destroyed? Like, I don’t know, Mount Rushmore being exploded? Or someone burning down an empty library? Maybe someone gaining access to an airport and throwing a molotov at the turbines of an empty jumbo jet?
These examples are explicitly more severe than damaging Teslas. But only few would argue any of those aren’t terrorism, be it perpetrated by anti-imperialist Native Americans (exploding Mount Rushmore), by anti-intellectual fascists (burning down a library) or by environmentalists (molotov @ plane). All of these groups would have political motives which is really all that’s needed for damaging property to be terrorism.
Whether terrorism can or cannot ever be justified is a different question. But I’d argue attacking Tesla dealerships through violent means is domestic terrorism - be it shooting them up or setting them on fire.
How is that relevant? The definition doesn’t fit the situation. If you want to propose a new definition, feel free.
Depends on the motives and way it happens. That is a valuable perspective but reality could be grim.
In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.
Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That’s harm.
Maybe not a lot of harm. But it’s harm.
In the U.K. it’s criminal damage, not sure what the USA exact term will be, but it won’t be terrorism.
Still not violence
It is if you’re using the definition provided by the person I’m replying to.
The thing is: nearly everything can cause harm, in some small, indirect way. And everything is political, even if only some small, indirect way.
So taken to the “logical” extreme, me eating oatmeal for breakfast is terrorism. It harmed the people in the fields working for low wages, and it’s a political choice to eat less meat for a meal.
This is why it seems silly to meant of us to call burning Tesla dealerships terrorism. Does sitting bud light cans count as terrorism? Do boycotts count as terrorism?
You make some good points.
Back in the late 2000 or early 2010, there was a spate of, let’s say, aggressive vandalism directed at abortion clinics. I cannot help but think that, even though no person was hurt, that it must have been pretty scary for both the employees, and the patients. But would you argue that it’s not terrorism? I’d argue it was. It was a direct effort to use force, I would say violence, in order to cause a political change in practice, if not in fact.
That movement goes beyond aggressive vandalism: there were literal murders (and attempted murders) going back to the eighties and mostly during the nineties. So it’s absolutely not true to say no one was hurt by those acts. Likewise, the bombings and arson that were inflicted were indeed meant to cause terror on a large scale, and was specifically targeting medical infrastructure, which is war crime level bad. So yeah: terrorism.
If it was only the vandalism, or walking around with dumb signs…then it’s more arguable, even though I’m vehemently against them. IMHO violence against people is what crosses the line. Likewise, when anti-abortion groups are bombing literal medical clinics - that definitely goes beyond vandalism and into territory that causes harm to folks, even in the cases they didn’t kill people directly with the bombs. Blocking people from entering clinics - trying to intimidate workers and patients…also more “grey”, but can arguably cause direct harm/violence.
So to the case from the OP, IMHO vandalizing teslas isn’t harming civilian infrastructure, or otherwise harming people directly, so…I don’t think it crosses the line. Until it does, I think at best it’s reaching to call it domestic terrorism, and at worst - it’s just being bandied about to justify locking up political enemies and chill protests. I fully acknowledge it’s a fairly morally grey area to be discussing, so thank you for a good exchange.
What you’re missing is Trump includes holding a sign as an “attack”
just put maga on the sign
It’s not terrorism if it’s not even trying to kill people. That’s just destruction of property or arson in this case.
One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.
By far the absolute worst election promise of Trump47 was to give blanket immunity to police for murder, which directly leads to “don’t let this extortion turn into a murder, and don’t say liberal shit”.
Musk recommending to pardon George Floyd cop murderer is a ploy for protests and crackdowns on protests. During Trump45, the Jerusalem capital/embassy was opportunity to murder protesters, and he also amplified George Floyd protests as a re-election ploy to keep suburban moms safe from the uppity negroes.
Musk is intentionally inciting domestic violence through his divisive and hateful recommendation. He’d just prefer the violence be directed at angry negroes than his cars.
Rick: “You know, Mr. President, the more you use that word, the less impact it has. At this point, it’s like a terrorist is just a guy you don’t like.”
Pres: “Shut up, you terrorist!”
This is from memory, so isn’t gonna be fully accurate. Ah well.
Terrorism is politically/religiously motivated violence.
So is he trying to say that attacking a (supposedly) independent, non-government owned corporation, which is (supposedly) held and headed by a person who is officially nowhere on any governments payroll, is political?
This is just like with the murder of Brian Thompson, the charges reveal the truth of what they think.
Terrorism is politically/religiously motivated violence.
…By non-uniformed personnel, against non-state actors, for the purpose of using visceral public fear to achieve political goals.
Uniformed vs state is war
Non-uniformed vs state is insurrection
Uniformed vs non-state is war crime (unless against insurrection/ terrorism I suppose, in which case its just war/ counter terrorism).
Guess that means they get a free pardon. The opposition should start calling them Patriots & promising them pardons.
Easy. Just run for president and pardon yourself. Duh.
But it is domestic terrorism, it completely fits that definition. I’m not saying I really give a shit, but let’s be clear what’s happening.
Is it though? Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve a political goal by creating fear in a population. The people who are targeting Tesla dealerships aren’t directing their message to the general population, they’re directing it to one Nazi in particular.
Exactly. They aren’t even attempting to scare Tesla customers themselves. It’s all about tarnishing Musk’s image, sending a message, and damaging his cashcow.
Yes that’s by definition domestic terrorism, Elon is part of government and even if he weren’t so long as the fires and such are intended to raise awareness by fear or loss of profit it would still be by definition domestic terrorism.
For reference according to the FBI since 1982:
The FBI defines terrorism, domestic or international, as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
If the sentence begins with “the FBI defines…” you can be sure it helps fascists…
Dank hyperbole but that really doesn’t change the definition.
I don’t know how weird US Law can get, but Elon Musk is not “a Government”, a “civilian population” and at this point not even an elected official.
Since these protests are aimed at discrediting and damaging a specific individual and/or enterprise, the FBI definition does not apply.
He is part of the government and you’re either being stupid or you’re actually stupid, let’s hope it’s an act.
They also say he’s not a Nazi, trust your eyes not the proven liars.
Still, legally the definition of the FBI would not apply.
Removed by mod
Then there’s clearly a distinct and significant double standard at play here, which is 100% the actual problem.
Yes that’s what the other person is saying. It is clearly domestic terrorism but because the left in large part feel it to be a moral action that it isn’t domestic terrorism and that’s just wildly idiotic. Almost to a person terrorists believe themselves to be doing something morally correct while also being intentionally morally abborant.
It’s a very dumb term to use in earnest, just call them what they did and stop trying to make morality a legal question.
I’m the same person that made the original comment. Yes, that is what I was getting at. How long before “proud terrorist” merchandise? Can’t believe how silly the future is.
Rage bait used to be believable
Maybe I’m missing something if the “attacks” in question are water balloons or whatever. I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that something more severe was implied by that word. Like arson, or similar.
“Think before you drink before you drive me mad.”
Carefully chosen words to make people go “oh, that’s terrible” and side with what Trump is saying.
So you disagree with the FBIs definition? Why does your disagreement make it bait?
This is basically like that time Jimmy Carter’s peanut fields were torched because of high gasoline prices
I mean, if someone was to burn a dealership down, that would be rather similar. I assumed a certain severity of attack, because that word implies a degree of violence to me. I may be wrong there. I don’t think graffiti could ever be accurately described as an attack, for example.
Has anyone else heard that people are trying to return their new Teslas and Cybertrucks because they are apparently infested with bedbugs?! I guess they are in the factories and dealerships and have just been crawling into the cars at night?
It wouldn’t surpise me if Elmo and the news are trying to keep a tight lid on it so people won’t find out, and Conspiracy nuts are saying that Tesla is torching their own Cybertrucks in the dealership lots to contain the spread.
I didnt belive it at first but a friend of mine took a Lyft in a Tesla the other night and started to feel itchy but the back seat was dark and she was on her phone. While she was getting out, she noticed a bunch of tiny spots on her dress and they were bedbugs!
Naturally she freaked the fuck out and the driver apologized profusely begging her not to give him a bad review before speeding off.
She refused to go into her apartment afterward and spent a few hours in the laundry room practically naked running her clothes in the dryer! Apparently high heat is the only Way to get rid of them?
She’s still traumatized and insists she still feels them crawling on her even though an exterminator with a bedbug sniffing dog assured her the apartment was clear.
Has anyone else heard about this? It’s so messed up, considering they’re such expensive cars!
Removed by mod
They think hygiene is a conspiracy
Removed by mod
Were those 4 trucks I heard burned at a dealership? That would track.
I’ve had this problem and I’ve done the same laundry dance. It is extremely stressful.
Source?
Ken Klippenstein is a well known and well respected journalist.
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Klippenstein
Not trying to be rude, but he should be a good enough source even though this is only a screenshot. Here’s a link to the skeet (is that what they’re called? gross?):
https://bsky.app/profile/kenklippenstein.bsky.social/post/3lk4te5j6tk24
But if that’s not enough here’s Reuters corroborating the same point:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-buy-new-tesla-show-support-musk-2025-03-11/
Trump says violence against Tesla is domestic terrorism
This took me less than three minutes to search, compile, and post. Cheers.
EDIT: The edits took longer because I’m also a dumbass and make a lot of silly mistakes and typos.
Reuters collaborating the same point
I think you mean corroborating
I am indeed a dumbass and that is indeed what I meant. *hats off
You know, 99% is still an A+
Casual reminder, fuck Tesla. Fuck Elon. Damn swasticars, and a nazi to boot!
Thank you!
https://youtu.be/itOd-DplBtA?si=87KiXe09hwdwlbY_&t=23
…they’re harming a great American company
I’d argue that Musk himself is also harming the company by exhibiting behaviors that Tesla’s target customers find objectionable. If I didn’t know Tesla shareholders better, I would have thought he should have been released from his position as CEO by now.
Ken… Klipppenstein…?
The names right there. Maybe one of the most famous journalists in the current, albeit fragmented, era?
Oops. Wrong Hitler.
Indeed, the Government of Putin protecting Nazi owned property.
Kinda wish the same thing would happen to insert other us based car manufacturer just to see the spin. But fuck Elon, glad some people are waking up to his idiocy. Too many people have too long equated wealth with integrity & intelligence.
It’s weird, fascist, demented behavior.
