Lmao blowing up a diplomat “obviously” wasn’t terrorism.
Yes, exactly. It was assassination.
Look at the target. Was it a member of the general public? No, it was a diplomat, or at least a politician on a diplomatic mission. So, the public is unlikely to think that they’re in danger.
Look at where it happened. Was it in a public area on Romulus or something? No, it was far outside Romulan territory. So, the general public is unlikely to think that they’re in danger.
Was there any collateral damage? No, just the one person was killed. So, the general public doesn’t even think they could take damage as bystanders to another assassination.
There’s no way a reasonable person could look at that and think it was terrorism, unless you broaden the definition of terrorism to include every possible violent death.
So, the public is unlikely to think that they’re in danger.
Literally the whole point was to make the Romulans think that they’re in danger from the Dominion. You know, point 2 that I made earlier that you completely and arbitrarily ignored?
Look at where it happened. Was it in a public area on Romulus or something? No, it was far outside Romulan territory.
This is completely irrelevant. Imagine someone planted a bomb on a plane and it detonated while it was in the middle of the ocean. Would the distance make people not feel in danger and therefore make the act “obviously not terrorism” somehow??? What a completely absurd position.
Was it a member of the general public?
The target was a civilian (plus the crew, of course), and the general public does not have to be targeted for it to be terrorism.
Literally the whole point was to make the Romulans think that they’re in danger from the Dominion
That’s not terrorism. That’s just fear of a war or betrayal.
Would the distance make people not feel in danger and therefore make the act “obviously not terrorism” somehow???
Was the Romulan senator on a space liner with lots of other passengers, or was he in his own private shuttle?
Again, terrorism is about a fear that someone who is merely a member of the general public might get killed or injured. Blowing up an airliner can be terrorism because you could think “that might have been me on that plane, they killed a lot of innocent people”. Blowing up someone’s private yacht is not terrorism because no ordinary member of the public thinks “that could have been my yacht!” In particular, blowing up the yacht, in “international waters” of someone who is going to make a deal with a dangerous potential enemy is not even close to terrorism. The target isn’t the public, there’s no collateral damage to members of the public, the location is somewhere they’d never be. There’s no fear that they could be next.
The target was a civilian
The target was a Romulan senator on a mission as a diplomat, not a member of the general public. The general public has to be convinced they’re in danger for it to be terrorism. Otherwise what? War is terrorism? A mob hit on another mobster is terrorism? The shootout at the OK Corral was terrorism? A 18th century duel is terrorism? A bullfighter getting killed by a bull is terrorism?
That’s not terrorism. That’s just fear of a war or betrayal.
Your whole argument was “it’s not terrorism because they weren’t terrified.” Now you’re admitting that it did, in fact, cause them to be afraid.
Was the Romulan senator on a space liner with lots of other passengers, or was he in his own private shuttle?
He was in his private shuttle, with his crew and escort.
Again, terrorism is about a fear that someone who is merely a member of the general public might get killed or injured.
Which was the explicit goal of Garak’s actions. To make the general public afraid the Dominion was going to kill them.
Blowing up someone’s private yacht is not terrorism because no ordinary member of the public thinks “that could have been my yacht!”
Got it, so 9/11 wasn’t terrorism because I don’t work in a skyscraper.
This is complete nonsense. If they can target a high profile figure, they can target anyone. Furthermore, a major defining factor of terrorism is trying to advance a political agenda, and targeting a senator to draw the Romulans into a war could not possibly be more in line with that.
A mob hit on another mobster is terrorism?
Is that seeking to evoke fear in the public to advance a political agenda, like Garak was?
The shootout at the OK Corral was terrorism?
Is that seeking to evoke fear in the public to advance a political agenda, like Garak was?
A 18th century duel is terrorism?
Is that seeking to evoke fear in the public to advance a political agenda, like Garak was?
A bullfighter getting killed by a bull is terrorism?
Is that seeking to evoke fear in the public to advance a political agenda, like Garak was?
Your whole argument was “it’s not terrorism because they weren’t terrified.”
Whack that straw man, go for it. You’ll defeat it soon!
He was in his private shuttle, with his crew and escort.
Exactly, so no members of the public were harmed, nobody is going to be thinking “that could have been me”. It’s not terrorism.
To make the general public afraid the Dominion was going to kill them.
In a war. Not through terrorism. If the members of the public were afraid that they would be caught up in a terrorist act, then it would have been terrorism. It wasn’t.
Got it, so 9/11 wasn’t terrorism because I don’t work in a skyscraper.
Go on, whack that strawman, you’ll beat it!
Is that seeking to evoke fear in the public to advance a political agenda, like Garak was?
Garak wasn’t trying to evoke fear of terrorism in the public. He was trying to convince the Romulan rulers that the dominion was a threat.
So, he created terror among the Romulans? They sure didn’t seem terrified to me.
Your whole argument was “it’s not terrorism because they weren’t terrified.”
Whack that straw man, go for it. You’ll defeat it soon!
Absolute clown.
Exactly, so no members of the public were harmed
Both he and his crew were members of the public.
Garak wasn’t trying to evoke fear of terrorism in the public
Ah, so now it has to be specifically “fear of terrorism in the public” to qualify. This is ridiculous, I’m not going to engage with these shifted goalposts.
Wow, we’ve reached “I know you are but what am I.” While once again completely ignoring a valid point on no basis. You literally said, “So, he created terror among the Romulans? They sure didn’t seem terrified to me,” and now you’re doubling down on calling arguing against that a “strawman.”
No, he was a senator, his crew were the private crew of a senator.
And? That in no way makes them not count as “the public.”
Absolutely insane that your argument here is “it doesn’t count as terrorism because he targeted a political figure.” Targeting a political figure makes it more obviously terrorism!
Terrorism is the use of violence against the general public to change behaviours or policies. The reason it is called terrorism is that it works via terror. The threat is that the attacks will continue until the changes are made. So, the general public are terrified that they’ll be hurt in the next attack.
In the case of Garrack, the target isn’t the general public, nor is the assassination in an area near the general public, nor are there meaningful casualties other than the prime target. Already this disqualifies it as being terrorism. Nobody is going to be afraid that the next attack is going to hurt them because they’re not likely to be flying out of Romulan space on a diplomatic mission. There’s no worry that they might be next, so there’s no terror.
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?
Yes, exactly. It was assassination.
Look at the target. Was it a member of the general public? No, it was a diplomat, or at least a politician on a diplomatic mission. So, the public is unlikely to think that they’re in danger.
Look at where it happened. Was it in a public area on Romulus or something? No, it was far outside Romulan territory. So, the general public is unlikely to think that they’re in danger.
Was there any collateral damage? No, just the one person was killed. So, the general public doesn’t even think they could take damage as bystanders to another assassination.
There’s no way a reasonable person could look at that and think it was terrorism, unless you broaden the definition of terrorism to include every possible violent death.
Literally the whole point was to make the Romulans think that they’re in danger from the Dominion. You know, point 2 that I made earlier that you completely and arbitrarily ignored?
This is completely irrelevant. Imagine someone planted a bomb on a plane and it detonated while it was in the middle of the ocean. Would the distance make people not feel in danger and therefore make the act “obviously not terrorism” somehow??? What a completely absurd position.
The target was a civilian (plus the crew, of course), and the general public does not have to be targeted for it to be terrorism.
That’s not terrorism. That’s just fear of a war or betrayal.
Was the Romulan senator on a space liner with lots of other passengers, or was he in his own private shuttle?
Again, terrorism is about a fear that someone who is merely a member of the general public might get killed or injured. Blowing up an airliner can be terrorism because you could think “that might have been me on that plane, they killed a lot of innocent people”. Blowing up someone’s private yacht is not terrorism because no ordinary member of the public thinks “that could have been my yacht!” In particular, blowing up the yacht, in “international waters” of someone who is going to make a deal with a dangerous potential enemy is not even close to terrorism. The target isn’t the public, there’s no collateral damage to members of the public, the location is somewhere they’d never be. There’s no fear that they could be next.
The target was a Romulan senator on a mission as a diplomat, not a member of the general public. The general public has to be convinced they’re in danger for it to be terrorism. Otherwise what? War is terrorism? A mob hit on another mobster is terrorism? The shootout at the OK Corral was terrorism? A 18th century duel is terrorism? A bullfighter getting killed by a bull is terrorism?
Your whole argument was “it’s not terrorism because they weren’t terrified.” Now you’re admitting that it did, in fact, cause them to be afraid.
He was in his private shuttle, with his crew and escort.
Which was the explicit goal of Garak’s actions. To make the general public afraid the Dominion was going to kill them.
Got it, so 9/11 wasn’t terrorism because I don’t work in a skyscraper.
This is complete nonsense. If they can target a high profile figure, they can target anyone. Furthermore, a major defining factor of terrorism is trying to advance a political agenda, and targeting a senator to draw the Romulans into a war could not possibly be more in line with that.
Is that seeking to evoke fear in the public to advance a political agenda, like Garak was?
Is that seeking to evoke fear in the public to advance a political agenda, like Garak was?
Is that seeking to evoke fear in the public to advance a political agenda, like Garak was?
Is that seeking to evoke fear in the public to advance a political agenda, like Garak was?
Whack that straw man, go for it. You’ll defeat it soon!
Exactly, so no members of the public were harmed, nobody is going to be thinking “that could have been me”. It’s not terrorism.
In a war. Not through terrorism. If the members of the public were afraid that they would be caught up in a terrorist act, then it would have been terrorism. It wasn’t.
Go on, whack that strawman, you’ll beat it!
Garak wasn’t trying to evoke fear of terrorism in the public. He was trying to convince the Romulan rulers that the dominion was a threat.
Absolute clown.
Both he and his crew were members of the public.
Ah, so now it has to be specifically “fear of terrorism in the public” to qualify. This is ridiculous, I’m not going to engage with these shifted goalposts.
You are, but I’m still willing to listen if you have a better argument and aren’t going to just set up a strawman argument.
No, he was a senator, his crew were the private crew of a senator.
Yes, that’s what terrorism is.
Wow, we’ve reached “I know you are but what am I.” While once again completely ignoring a valid point on no basis. You literally said, “So, he created terror among the Romulans? They sure didn’t seem terrified to me,” and now you’re doubling down on calling arguing against that a “strawman.”
And? That in no way makes them not count as “the public.”
Absolutely insane that your argument here is “it doesn’t count as terrorism because he targeted a political figure.” Targeting a political figure makes it more obviously terrorism!
No, that makes it assassination. That’s exactly what the DS9 team says happened.
Terrorism is the use of violence against the general public to change behaviours or policies. The reason it is called terrorism is that it works via terror. The threat is that the attacks will continue until the changes are made. So, the general public are terrified that they’ll be hurt in the next attack.
In the case of Garrack, the target isn’t the general public, nor is the assassination in an area near the general public, nor are there meaningful casualties other than the prime target. Already this disqualifies it as being terrorism. Nobody is going to be afraid that the next attack is going to hurt them because they’re not likely to be flying out of Romulan space on a diplomatic mission. There’s no worry that they might be next, so there’s no terror.
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?
What Garrack did isn’t terrorism. It was a false flag assassination. His goal wasn’t even to cause fear in anyone. It was to get the Romulans to believe the evidence he planted that the Dominion were planning to invade Romulus. There’s nothing about what happened that even comes close to terrorism.