Yeah that would count as terrorizing the populace, although terrorist to me is specifically someone outside the ruling government, otherwise they’re a brutal occupying army/genocidal government, which to me is worse than terrorist. Kira was a terrorist, for a just cause.
Yeah, I guess she was trying to terrorize government officials and whatever civilians the Cardassians had there. I think you could call that a populace. Just not the occupied populace.
The Cardassians were bad. But I’m not sure why it’s so important for them to be terrorists.
When Stalin and the USSR engineered a famine in Ukraine were they terrorists? They definitely did it. But people usually call it genocide instead of terrorism because the balance of power is top down instead of bottom up. It’s just a different word for a different bad thing.
But I’m not sure why it’s so important for them to be terrorists.
I’m not sure why it’s so important for them not to be terrorists.
But people usually call it genocide instead of terrorism because the balance of power is top down instead of bottom up.
I don’t really want to get into that tangent, but genocide is not exclusively a “top-down” thing. There were independent militias in WWII that hunted down and exterminated Jews in Eastern European villages (some affiliated with Stefan Bandera), they were committing genocide regardless of state backing.
Regardless, Garak was involved in both (at different times in his life) blowing people up as a non-state actor to advance a political agenda, and in harming a wider populace.
To me its important to use words that convey specific meaning. If the meaning of terrorist has changed to something I’m not familiar with, I’d like to know.
I believe you that Garak engaged in non-state-sponsored acts of terrorism. And perhaps the definition of terrorism should include some state sponsored acts, like perhaps KGB-agents roughing up people, or the FBI targeting civil rights groups. Or fucking ICE doing everything they’ve got going on. Dang language is hard. I think I’m changing my mind.
My definition of terrorism would very clearly and unequivocally say that planting a bomb on a diplomat’s ship is an act of terrorism. That’s a very standard definition and straightforward case. The meaning has not “changed,” such an act would always have been considered terrorism.
This whole question of whether it’s still considered terrorism when a state does it or whether we should call that something else, is just because you disputed that definition, saying that terrorism is when you harm the populace. I just pointed out that Garak also harmed the populace, and that Kira, who you do consider a terrorist, did not. Include acts conducted by states, don’t include them, either way, Garak did both.
Cloak and dagger spy shit.
Terrorism is when you try to harm the populace.
You mean like when he participated in the Cardassian occupation?
Yeah that would count as terrorizing the populace, although terrorist to me is specifically someone outside the ruling government, otherwise they’re a brutal occupying army/genocidal government, which to me is worse than terrorist. Kira was a terrorist, for a just cause.
Did Kira try to harm the populace? I feel like most of what she did was more like… blowing up government officials.
It’s pretty hard to come up with a consistent definition of terrorist that wouldn’t include Garak, I’m just saying.
Yeah, I guess she was trying to terrorize government officials and whatever civilians the Cardassians had there. I think you could call that a populace. Just not the occupied populace.
The Cardassians were bad. But I’m not sure why it’s so important for them to be terrorists.
When Stalin and the USSR engineered a famine in Ukraine were they terrorists? They definitely did it. But people usually call it genocide instead of terrorism because the balance of power is top down instead of bottom up. It’s just a different word for a different bad thing.
I’m not sure why it’s so important for them not to be terrorists.
I don’t really want to get into that tangent, but genocide is not exclusively a “top-down” thing. There were independent militias in WWII that hunted down and exterminated Jews in Eastern European villages (some affiliated with Stefan Bandera), they were committing genocide regardless of state backing.
Regardless, Garak was involved in both (at different times in his life) blowing people up as a non-state actor to advance a political agenda, and in harming a wider populace.
To me its important to use words that convey specific meaning. If the meaning of terrorist has changed to something I’m not familiar with, I’d like to know.
I believe you that Garak engaged in non-state-sponsored acts of terrorism. And perhaps the definition of terrorism should include some state sponsored acts, like perhaps KGB-agents roughing up people, or the FBI targeting civil rights groups. Or fucking ICE doing everything they’ve got going on. Dang language is hard. I think I’m changing my mind.
My definition of terrorism would very clearly and unequivocally say that planting a bomb on a diplomat’s ship is an act of terrorism. That’s a very standard definition and straightforward case. The meaning has not “changed,” such an act would always have been considered terrorism.
This whole question of whether it’s still considered terrorism when a state does it or whether we should call that something else, is just because you disputed that definition, saying that terrorism is when you harm the populace. I just pointed out that Garak also harmed the populace, and that Kira, who you do consider a terrorist, did not. Include acts conducted by states, don’t include them, either way, Garak did both.