German police hunting down G20 terrorists one by one

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: verschickter

I'm uncomfortable with calling demonstrators terrorists regardless of whether they've damaged property of not , criminals yes terrorists No.
Slippery slope.

Terrorism is the use of violence to intimidate or coerce the public for the sake of political or religious goals. I'd say a swarm of masked people who show up and physically attack those who have differing political opinions is about as close to terrorism as you can get. Add to that arson and vandalism, and you've got yourself every right to treat the perpetrators as such.
They literally are terrorists.

Imagine if a gang of masked people ran up to a Jew and beat him bloody on the side of the street while threatening to burn his home down because of his religious choice. It's the exact same principle.

Last time Hamburg had that many fires RAF planes were dropping incendiary bombs. Not sure if you would call the G20 terrorist itself or just plain fascist. Such economic power is bound to be wielded at someone's expense. It should have been protested but not like this. Let the government be the bad guys. When both sides are despicable it's easy for the media to spin it in favor of the establishment.

This just makes legitimate protests look bad.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: verschickter

I'm uncomfortable with calling demonstrators terrorists regardless of whether they've damaged property of not , criminals yes terrorists No.
Slippery slope.

Interesting point.At some point, the line between 'criminal' and 'terrorist' will blur. 'Slippery slope is possible. So is demeaning the seriousness of the terrorist label.

Point being those living there were terrorized, it´s plain simple. For them they were terrorists. For the german goverment they are terrorists and to 14 (fourteen) other contries, they are deemed terrorists, too.

If you come to terrorize my city by beating my friends up and setting their houses and cars on fire for political reasons, you are a terrorist.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Last time Hamburg had that many fires RAF planes were dropping incendiary bombs...

RAF as in Red Army Faction, not Royal Air Force

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: verschickter

I'm uncomfortable with calling demonstrators terrorists regardless of whether they've damaged property of not , criminals yes terrorists No.
Slippery slope.

If the goal was to create terror then they are terrorists, if the goal was simply to destroy stuff then they are not.

Anyways, let´s get back to the topic those terrorists (or peaceful demonstrants for some) are slowly being tracked down.

That´s a good thing.

a reply to: verschickter

Hope they all get what they deserve.

originally posted by: verschickter
Anyways, let´s get back to the topic those terrorists (or peaceful demonstrants for some) are slowly being tracked down.

That´s a good thing.

Absolutely that's a good thing they are being tracked down, those pricks should be locked up.

I agree the others in this thread though they should not be labeled terrorists, it's far too loose usage of the word, if everyone breaking the law is labeled a terrorist it kind of loses its meaning.

a reply to: verschickter

I'm all for bringing the jerks that enact violence and destruction of property to justice.

I'd be remiss if i didn't admit, however, that the term "Breach of inner peace" sounds like an Orwellian wet dream charge.

With respect to the definition of terrorism, the Inauguration day protesters in Washington, DC were initially charged with felony rioting for actions similar to these German leftist. So far, none of those charged have been convicted of any crime.

Under the Trump administration, unless the perpetrator's actions are related to radical Islam, it's not considered terrorism.

However, Germany, and the EU in general, is probably a different case. If for no other reason than because of the more diverse mixture of cultures and broader range of extreme political positions.

So, it appears that our comrades in Deutschland have at least Radical Islamist, Neo-Nazi, and Anti-Fascist factions that all hate one another and hate the government; and they have no problem using violence to achieve their goals. Stuck in the middle of this melee are the law-abiding residents who just want to live in peace.

I'll accept their definition of terrorism. And I applaud their efforts to bring these criminals to justice. I just hope their prosecutors do a better job of prosecuting these perpetrators than their US counterparts.

I wonder how much the NSA assisted the German investigators. I would bet good money that those shadowy NSA super-computers were keeping an eye on every one of them.

-dex

a reply to: verschickter

I'm fine with them being "persecuted" as terrorist. I've thought that if you set fires, break windows, loot. rape, beat others and not peacefully assemble you are fair game to be shot. You've basically already said I'm not following your stinking laws and you can't do anything about it; therefore, you give up any rights to due process.

a reply to: CreationBro

I'd be remiss if i didn't admit, however, that the term "Breach of inner peace" sounds like an Orwellian wet dream charge.

When it´s used against the far-right neo-nazis it´s okay, but the second it hit´s the "freedom fighters"-far-left, it´s Orwellian. Yeah, no! I´ve heard remarks like that a hundred times before. Just because you´ve read or heard about Orwell, doesn´t mean he´s lurking behind every corner.

There are good reasons for laws like this. How would you describe those actions on 7/8 July 2017? Embracement of inner peace?

But in this todays world, everything must be either black or white. The government is always evil.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: verschickter

.....you don't use a dictionary to define terrorism, terrorisim is defined by the state not by google.

And the German State is rightly treating them as such so what more do you want?

a reply to: verschickter

Orwell is a good point, thanks for using the Newspeak nomenclature as intended. Kinda telling, innit?

In December, the Hamburg police had already widely published photos of alleged suspects. In an action coordinated with the tabloid Bild, they posted photos of 104 alleged rioters on the Internet. What the Hamburg police have described as “one of the largest public search operations in German history” is an unlawful, prejudicial action in which those affected are publicly pilloried without due process of law.

statewatch.org...

Who needs due process anyway!
A professional public service from the people for the people...

They were drafted in to police a summit in Hamburg next week of 20 of the world's most powerful leaders and now they have been sent home in disgrace.

www.bbc.com...

Oh so professional! Share a Black Block pic or two and criminalize many to catch a few then? There are suspicious people around, wearing black hoodies when it's dark outside. Where am I supposed to make my statement now?

You´re so full of #

Orwell is a good point, thanks for using the Newspeak nomenclature as intended. Kinda telling, innit?

You intended that? How? Don´t try to paint yourself as smart here luring others into traps, lol you´re so childish.

You just argue for the sake of arguing. You excuse such behavior, it´s clear from your posts in the past. No word from you about the topic, you just whine how wrong and unfair it is to label those terrorists.

You share their viewpoint, thus you will defend them until your last breath. Because to you and your failed life, everyone who does better deserves to get their stuff burned and beaten up.

You are at own fault for your failures in life, not me, not the state and not the people that work their ass of to achieve something.

Grow up.

a reply to: verschickter

Let's conflate actual terrorists, like the NSU-muderers or RAF scumbags for example, with riots on a G20 summit? No problem, this is ATS. Spin away!
But don't cry "shill" when I start to mirror the Bollocks on my end of the flatscreens.

Let's criminalize the whole police force due to the illegal, but more dionysiac, actions of a few public servants as well now? Fair game, innit? You've got nothing to hide, or do you?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Nothing is defined by the state.

The state is a product created by the people to serve them. Like a tool or system.

It is populated by sentient employees but the state itself is not sentient. It has no existence beyond its national borders and its citizens passports.

a reply to: tadaman

Don´t tell him that, he needs an enemy to project fear and hate on it.

a reply to: tadaman

Yet it is the legislative branch of the state that provides legal definitions witch we are subject to.....

You're not going to win any court case by arguing that the definition in the dictionary is what matters above legal definition set out in the jurisprudence of the land.The definition of rape for example is not what the dictionary says it is, rather it is what the law of the land says that matter. Now seeing as this thread seems to be about treating these individuals legally as terrorists then yeah, sorry but the legal definition matters above what the dictionary might say. You might not like that, but its remains true no matter what amateur political science spin you want to put on it.

Besides it really isn't really the point of the thread, I was only pointing out to express my view that using a dictionary to define such complex matters is rather stupid.