That’s literally just a clip from the episode lmao. That’s not “the DS9 team” saying it wasn’t terrorism.
Did you think it was real? These are the officers of DS9 on a show called DS9 saying it isn’t terrorism, saying instead it was assassination.
Again, complete nonsense. It’s not about whether people are “afraid the next attack is going to hurt them.”
Wow. Ok, so when people are terrorized in terrorism, what is it they’re afraid of? Spiders?
do you think rural farmers in Montana watched an attack on the financial center of New York and thought, “Oh my god, they could’ve just as easily decided to go after my farm!”
YES!
Even before the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, many farmers had concerns about biosecurity and agroterrorism. Since 9/11, agroterrorism has garnered more national attention. Eighty percent of the farmers who responded to a 2002 Internet survey indicated that they expect some form of agroterrorism to occur in the United States.
But, even if the farmers hadn’t been scared, there’s no requirement that every member of the public be scared. Do you want to claim that regular people in NYC weren’t scared about another attack? Or people working in tall buildings in Los Angeles? That’s a key aspect whenever it’s terrorism, the general public is afraid of another terrorist attack. If you disagree, find an example of a terrorist attack in which the general public is not at all concerned that they’re in danger from another attack.
the Romulans literally do think that the next attack is going to hurt them!
No, they don’t. They don’t think there will be another shuttle-bombing attack. There was a specific reason that they believed that shuttle was bombed, and it was because the shuttle was carrying information that the Dominion didn’t want to get into Romulan hands.
In addition, if Garrack is a terrorist, what are his demands as a terrorist? When does he make it clear that he’s behind the attack, and that similar attacks will happen unless his aims are achieved?
None of those are requirements for terrorism, even by your own definition.
By your definition they are. A terrorist attempts to “coerce governments or societies to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals”, so Garrack, the terrorist surely communicated his goals to the Romulans, and warned them that unless they did as he demanded, there would be further terrorist attacks.
If you don’t think that a terrorist communicating their demands is a key part of terrorism, find an example of a terrorist attack in which the public had no idea what the demands were.
What Bin Laden did wasn’t terrorism
What Bin Laden did was terrorism because:
He used violence against the general public
He took credit for that violence
He made his demands clear for the attacks to stop
Compare that to Garrack.
He used violence against a single person and his immediate staff (i.e. an assassination), the public wasn’t threatened
He never took credit for that violence, in fact, he tried to pretend it wasn’t him
He never made any demands
What he did was a political assassination, as part of a false flag operation.
Compare that to what the US did to Japanese General Yamamoto.
They used violence against a single person and his immediate staff (i.e. an assassination), the public wasn’t threatened
They took credit, it wasn’t a false flag
They never made any demands, other than the continuing demand that Japan surrender
Unless you’re going to label anything that involves violence as terrorism, what Garrack did is nothing like terrorism.
Is it terrorism when a soldier shoots an enemy soldier in a war? It makes nearby soldiers scared, so it’s terrorism, that’s your definition right?
And he wanted them to believe that evidence in order to cause fear that the Dominion would attack them
That’s not how the “fear” part of terrorism works. In a terrorist attack, you are made to fear another terrorist attack, and if you know that if you meet certain demands, the attacks will stop.
You have to be trolling, there is no possible way for you to be this dumb.
Says the guy who posted a definition of terrorism that clearly doesn’t apply in this case, and yet still keeps arguing that this was terrorism.
I’m done engaging with your stupid bullshit. If you want to keep talking nonsense, tell it to someone else. I find it hard to believe how anyone else on the planet would agree with you.
Because you know you have no leg to stand on. You post the definition of terrorism, I show that what happens doesn’t meet your own definition, and now you give up trying to defend your point of view.
I’m not “giving up trying to defend my point of view.” I’ve already demonstrated that you’re full of shit on multiple levels and you just keep throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks and I’m tired of proving you wrong over and over again.
I already refuted like three of your positions. Every time you shift the goalposts and call it a “strawman” and if I refute your new position you’ll do the same, because you’re a clown.
You didn’t refute anything, you simply expanded your definition of terrorism until it fit anything you wanted. When you came up with an actual definition of terrorism, it was clear it didn’t support a false flag assassination of a government official.
Literally every single component of the definition I cited fits Garak’s actions to a T. You kept insisting that I’m “expanding” the definition to include anything, yet completely ignored the question I asked you on every single example you brought up.
It doesn’t matter. One comment you say it’s not terrorism because people “didn’t seem terrified.” Another comment you claim it doesn’t count as terrorism because of the location where it happened! I cut your arguments down again and again and you don’t care. You will just shift your position over and over again, denying that you ever held the previous one even though the comments are right there. You’re a completely shameless troll. You have to know how full of shit you are, I don’t know who you think you’re fooling.
Literally every single component of the definition I cited fits Garak’s actions to a T.
Only if you don’t know what a “T” is.
It doesn’t matter. One comment you say it’s not terrorism because people “didn’t seem terrified.”
Which you then claimed was my entire definition, in one of your famous strawman attacks. People being terrified is only part of what makes something terrorism.
because of the location where it happened!
Yes. You see, an explosion on a private “yacht” somewhere in the middle of nowhere is very different from an explosion in a public market. The location matters, because in terrorism, you need to terrify. If you’re not potentially in danger, it’s not terrifying.
Did you think it was real? These are the officers of DS9 on a show called DS9 saying it isn’t terrorism, saying instead it was assassination.
Wow. Ok, so when people are terrorized in terrorism, what is it they’re afraid of? Spiders?
YES!
https://www.extension.purdue.edu/eden/ruralsecurity/threats.html
But, even if the farmers hadn’t been scared, there’s no requirement that every member of the public be scared. Do you want to claim that regular people in NYC weren’t scared about another attack? Or people working in tall buildings in Los Angeles? That’s a key aspect whenever it’s terrorism, the general public is afraid of another terrorist attack. If you disagree, find an example of a terrorist attack in which the general public is not at all concerned that they’re in danger from another attack.
No, they don’t. They don’t think there will be another shuttle-bombing attack. There was a specific reason that they believed that shuttle was bombed, and it was because the shuttle was carrying information that the Dominion didn’t want to get into Romulan hands.
By your definition they are. A terrorist attempts to “coerce governments or societies to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals”, so Garrack, the terrorist surely communicated his goals to the Romulans, and warned them that unless they did as he demanded, there would be further terrorist attacks.
If you don’t think that a terrorist communicating their demands is a key part of terrorism, find an example of a terrorist attack in which the public had no idea what the demands were.
What Bin Laden did was terrorism because:
Compare that to Garrack.
What he did was a political assassination, as part of a false flag operation.
Compare that to what the US did to Japanese General Yamamoto.
Unless you’re going to label anything that involves violence as terrorism, what Garrack did is nothing like terrorism.
Is it terrorism when a soldier shoots an enemy soldier in a war? It makes nearby soldiers scared, so it’s terrorism, that’s your definition right?
That’s not how the “fear” part of terrorism works. In a terrorist attack, you are made to fear another terrorist attack, and if you know that if you meet certain demands, the attacks will stop.
Says the guy who posted a definition of terrorism that clearly doesn’t apply in this case, and yet still keeps arguing that this was terrorism.
I’m done engaging with your stupid bullshit. If you want to keep talking nonsense, tell it to someone else. I find it hard to believe how anyone else on the planet would agree with you.
Because you know you have no leg to stand on. You post the definition of terrorism, I show that what happens doesn’t meet your own definition, and now you give up trying to defend your point of view.
I’m not “giving up trying to defend my point of view.” I’ve already demonstrated that you’re full of shit on multiple levels and you just keep throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks and I’m tired of proving you wrong over and over again.
You haven’t demonstrated anything, other than your inability to read a definition and understand it.
I already refuted like three of your positions. Every time you shift the goalposts and call it a “strawman” and if I refute your new position you’ll do the same, because you’re a clown.
You didn’t refute anything, you simply expanded your definition of terrorism until it fit anything you wanted. When you came up with an actual definition of terrorism, it was clear it didn’t support a false flag assassination of a government official.
Literally every single component of the definition I cited fits Garak’s actions to a T. You kept insisting that I’m “expanding” the definition to include anything, yet completely ignored the question I asked you on every single example you brought up.
It doesn’t matter. One comment you say it’s not terrorism because people “didn’t seem terrified.” Another comment you claim it doesn’t count as terrorism because of the location where it happened! I cut your arguments down again and again and you don’t care. You will just shift your position over and over again, denying that you ever held the previous one even though the comments are right there. You’re a completely shameless troll. You have to know how full of shit you are, I don’t know who you think you’re fooling.
Only if you don’t know what a “T” is.
Which you then claimed was my entire definition, in one of your famous strawman attacks. People being terrified is only part of what makes something terrorism.
Yes. You see, an explosion on a private “yacht” somewhere in the middle of nowhere is very different from an explosion in a public market. The location matters, because in terrorism, you need to terrify. If you’re not potentially in danger, it’s not terrifying.