I think that arguing about justification is a moot point. Anyone can justify anything if they want to, and that goes twice for states. That’s without wading into the quagmire on the question of terrorism, largely for sanity’s sake. Generally, I think it is always correct to resist a state whose objectives include mass murder.
Is that a yes or a no? You either believe that states have the right to kill people they deem terrorists (whether that’s in good faith or bad is irrelevant) or they don’t have that right period.
There is no in-between; if you can’t answer the question or dance around it then what you’ve told everyone is that even you don’t believe in your own logic
I think that states have not a right, but a requirement to kill terrorists in order to guarantee their continued existence. If they don’t, then they no longer have the monopoly on violence, and the odds that a new state will form increase. It’s the same as anything that seeks to kill another thing to further its own existence. Though, I reject your assertion that one must only absolutely agree or disagree that state violence towards terrorists is legitimate, regardless of whether it’s in bad faith. By that logic, if you agree that the police in China may use deadly force to kill a spree murderer, you necessarily agree to the genocide of Palestine. As the Israeli state functionally considers all surrounding peoples, including Palestine, to be terrorists, they would be justified in committing genocide, because the Israeli state is doing it (in bad faith) to stop terrorism.
I also think that people have a much more legitimate right to resist the state than the state has to propagate its continued existence. It’s really down to whose violence you believe is legitimate, and I tend to air on the side of people over states. Were the native American raids against US settlers legitimate violence? Was the US right to kill the native American terrorists? Was the French Resistance to the Nazi occupation legitimate violence? Were the Nazis right to kill the resistance fighters? The Russian empire and the revolutionaries? Israel and Hamas? It’s states acting on their requirement to maintain and exercise the monopoly on violence. It’s just states propagating their own existence, which they always must do or face extinction; so the question becomes, does every state have a right to secure its existence in the way it imagines itself? No, I don’t believe so. It’s going to do it anyway, because that’s what states do, but I don’t think that the state, as a composition of political elements, has an absolute right to execute its will against all others.
Edit: took out the “free of all harassment”. We’re talking about whether the state has the right to kill terrorists, so the natural assumption is that the state in question has already been harassed.
So you think that killing is okay then? Even if it’s to protect the State’s existence? So what are you fucking complaining about then? USSR was justified in killing Nazis because they were a fucking threat to the USSR’s existence.
Nazis were terrorists against the USSR, so it’s fine that they killed them.
@TC_209@hexbear.net look see. Liberals always do this, complete hypocrisy and insulting other people’s intelligence.
conditonal_soup is just another fascist who is either unwilling or unable to tell the difference between the violence of those who oppress and those who are oppressed. I’ve decided to just ignore them, and I’d recommend you do the same comrade.
You’ve read me wrong if you think I’m upset over dead Nazis. I think you’re being obtuse on purpose, so I’ll do you a fair turn and wager that you’re very happy with how Israel’s been fighting “terrorism”.
It seems an awful lot like Israel is doing systematic genocide on flimsy pretenses, kind of a lot like the Nazis did. Nobody’s life is worth anything to the state, dipshit.
I think that arguing about justification is a moot point. Anyone can justify anything if they want to, and that goes twice for states. That’s without wading into the quagmire on the question of terrorism, largely for sanity’s sake. Generally, I think it is always correct to resist a state whose objectives include mass murder.
Is that a yes or a no? You either believe that states have the right to kill people they deem terrorists (whether that’s in good faith or bad is irrelevant) or they don’t have that right period.
There is no in-between; if you can’t answer the question or dance around it then what you’ve told everyone is that even you don’t believe in your own logic
tl;Dr: No, not a right, but an obligation.
I think that states have not a right, but a requirement to kill terrorists in order to guarantee their continued existence. If they don’t, then they no longer have the monopoly on violence, and the odds that a new state will form increase. It’s the same as anything that seeks to kill another thing to further its own existence. Though, I reject your assertion that one must only absolutely agree or disagree that state violence towards terrorists is legitimate, regardless of whether it’s in bad faith. By that logic, if you agree that the police in China may use deadly force to kill a spree murderer, you necessarily agree to the genocide of Palestine. As the Israeli state functionally considers all surrounding peoples, including Palestine, to be terrorists, they would be justified in committing genocide, because the Israeli state is doing it (in bad faith) to stop terrorism.
I also think that people have a much more legitimate right to resist the state than the state has to propagate its continued existence. It’s really down to whose violence you believe is legitimate, and I tend to air on the side of people over states. Were the native American raids against US settlers legitimate violence? Was the US right to kill the native American terrorists? Was the French Resistance to the Nazi occupation legitimate violence? Were the Nazis right to kill the resistance fighters? The Russian empire and the revolutionaries? Israel and Hamas? It’s states acting on their requirement to maintain and exercise the monopoly on violence. It’s just states propagating their own existence, which they always must do or face extinction; so the question becomes, does every state have a right to secure its existence in the way it imagines itself? No, I don’t believe so. It’s going to do it anyway, because that’s what states do, but I don’t think that the state, as a composition of political elements, has an absolute right to execute its will against all others.
Edit: took out the “free of all harassment”. We’re talking about whether the state has the right to kill terrorists, so the natural assumption is that the state in question has already been harassed.
So you think that killing is okay then? Even if it’s to protect the State’s existence? So what are you fucking complaining about then? USSR was justified in killing Nazis because they were a fucking threat to the USSR’s existence.
Nazis were terrorists against the USSR, so it’s fine that they killed them.
@TC_209@hexbear.net look see. Liberals always do this, complete hypocrisy and insulting other people’s intelligence.
conditonal_soup is just another fascist who is either unwilling or unable to tell the difference between the violence of those who oppress and those who are oppressed. I’ve decided to just ignore them, and I’d recommend you do the same comrade.
Yeah I’m not engaging further, they just asked me if I was okay with the genocide in Gaza.
I’m not even sure where they were going with that, but ngl I don’t care.
You’ve read me wrong if you think I’m upset over dead Nazis. I think you’re being obtuse on purpose, so I’ll do you a fair turn and wager that you’re very happy with how Israel’s been fighting “terrorism”.
You might as well ask me if I think the Nazis were justified in killing Jewish “terrorists” during the Holocaust.
Pro tip: it’s not the same thing, dumbass.
Final note:
It seems an awful lot like Israel is doing systematic genocide on flimsy pretenses, kind of a lot like the Nazis did. Nobody’s life is worth anything to the state, dipshit.