The US is an enforcer state for capitalist power. Biden is just head capo right now.

I think the whole terrorism definition for criminal law purposes is bloody insane. See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h55kWBVmoJJ-sH6SicwON7QXOObDiv0q/view?usp=drivesdk

It's a psychological malady but it sells advertising space on Breitbart, so someone's making mint at least. — Baden

Maybe we could stand back a bit. Imho...

A key problem is that pretty much all the cable news networks, liberal and conservative, are owned by major corporations whose bottom line focus is not news, but profit. This is why corporations exist, to make money, as much as possible.

So, how do you make money in the "news" business? You sell ads. Ad prices are based on audience size. So how do you get a large audience? By catering to the lowest common denominator. Who's that? That's us! :-)

Seriously, all the cable news shows really care about is stimulating viewers by any means necessary to keep us glued to the screen as long as possible. That's the business they're in. Like Facebook for example, carefully designed to feed us anything that will keep our attention.

Point being, the cable news corporations are injecting as much conflict in to the population as they possibly can in order to boost profits. It's not a crime, it's legal, but we should be more aware that we're being played.

Conflict addiction - it's real - check it out:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11211/conflict-addiction

I'm not plugged into the counter terrorism world the way I was back when I worked in it, but I believe this stems from the mobilization of previously largely online anarchist groups during the 2020 riots, a similar phenomenon to the Boogaloo Boys.

Some of these individuals were involved in arson, producing fire bombs to use on police, etc. Setting a building with people in it on fire fits the bill pretty well IMO. There were also explosives used on a police station in Seattle although the damage was not extensive.

Probably also a political hedge. You know, "we're getting all sides." But also people don't want to fall into the mistakes of the 2010s again. We ignored far right terrorism because it produced very few fatalities, and was generally low level arson. Then we started having mass casualty attacks. You don't want to wait until you're on your 5th mass shooting to start infiltration and CVE efforts like we did with the radical Right.

Anthony Blinkin even had the temerity to refer to them as 'self-defense'. Fuckers.

That tweet is basically saying "Joe Biden’s new anti-terrorism initiative classifies 'anarchist violent extremists' ... as 'domestic violent extremists'". Which make sense. It isn't saying "Joe Biden’s new anti-terrorism initiative classifies [those] that “oppose all forms of capitalism, corporate globalization, and governing institutions, which are perceived as harmful to society” as “domestic violent extremists.”

The essential qualifier of that document is "Domestic violent extremists are US-based actors who conduct or threaten activities that are dangerous to human life...", and it even says "[m]ere advocacy of political or social positions, political activism, use of strong rhetoric, or generalized philosophic embrace of violent tactics may not constitute violent extremism, and may be constitutionally protected."

It's just a way of categorising different kinds of domestic violent extremists according to their political goals.

A big, hot, steaming cup of Joe... — 0 thru 9

Pros or cons(ervatives)? Thoughts? Feelings? News stories? What is Joe Biden’s philosophy? Do share! — 0 thru 9

Now for something completely different...

Well... to be honest my only valued take away from this epic ordeal of change in leadership in the USA is this:

The nightly news in the country I live in (Austria) no longer has to dedicate 4 to 5 minutes of valuable time to the daily topic of:

"What new vitriolic brain fart did that Orange Julius Caesar Asshat Trump spew forth today..."

My personal 'happy part' of this transition is that finally I don't have to hear about the USA every fucking day of my life, in spite of the fact I choose to no longer live there.

I can finally have the focus of news put back onto things that actually concern my life in Austria and Europe, instead of the constant and tedious reminders of what I already know and what I've tried my best to leave behind me... that being:

Yes Greg... you do come from the stupid country.

I did not see the investments yet chief... :yikes:

Sánchez puts Spain ‘on the radar’ of US investors

That's fairly comforting, but I'm still not entirely convinced that, as an Anarcho-Pacifist, I won't be considered as a domestic terrorist threat.

Upon having this rather revolting thought myself, which has led me to discover what really happens behind the scenes in American politics, what do you think think the chances of Joe Biden getting reelected are now, given the political fallout of the situation in Afghanistan, and, if they are slim to none, what kind of person do you think that we should prepare ourselves for four years from now?

He does have a few years to recover, I guess, and, so, I may still my full eight years of apathetic bliss. It's no use thinking along the lines of the Democratic Party, anyways.

He does have a few years to recover — thewonder

The democrats recently rolled over on letting Republicans basically pick their voters, so they will lose the senate next year. After which the dems will be useless not by choice but by necessity. After which the Republicans will win again, and the US will continue down the shitter that the election of Joe Biden more or less guaranteed.

They've been fixing gerrymandering through the courts.

The way the Afghan government fell with the inertial political mass, enables talk about the failure of America in Afghanistan.

Obviously Biden will be smeared as much as possible by all of his critics.

Fortunately another potential Benghazi didn't happen. :eyes:

Fortunately another potential Benghazi didn't happen. :eyes: — Shawn

Hope so. Not over yet.

It’s terrible that Biden has fucked this up so badly, but also unmistakeably true. Yes, all those before him laid the trap, but he should have anticipate this outcome.

State should have war-roomed this scenario, had some very strong advocates for the worst-case scenario that has just materialised. ‘What will it look like if you’re evacuating embassy personnel off the roof in Blackhawks? If all those translators and their families are killed in the streets?’ They should have challenged his optimism, the naive faith that it would all be OK. The US still could still have left, but not left a disaster.

I was so hoping that the Biden administration would be successful and this disaster has diminished that hope. The problem is, a Biden failure will not open the door to someone better. Things being as they are, it will open the door to a lot of people who are a whole lot worse, by every conceivable measure. There’s a lot riding on the hope that somebody, anybody, who is not aligned with the criminal Trump and his malevolent cronies will carry the day, in the end. And if they don’t, we’re all going to be the worse off for it.

I did this, too, but I think that it's sort of telling that we begin to consider the next election results during a time of crisis such as this.

I was leafing through posts on Twitter on the situation there and found for a lot of them to either pass the blame, on the part of Biden supporters, or exploit the crisis by offering obvious criticism of Biden's response, on the part of right-wingers in the United States.

People in this country really have no sense of priorities. There's a crisis there and we should be thinking about how it is that we should respond and how we expect for our elected officials to.

For anyone who is curious, I supported the withdraw and still do. I think that this would have happened whether we withdrew in 2002, 2012, or 2034. It just isn't possible to have faith in what you're fighting for as an invading army, and one with only limited warrant at that. These claims that Donald Trump paved the way for Joe Biden's failed evacuation or inane and quite often conspiratorial insults levelled at Joe Biden, however, are really quite inapt. As soon as the American news media publishes videos of the Taliban announcing the establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, thereby ending the fascination that the general populace has with the ground truth there, something which we should applaud the associated press for bringing to us in what ways it can, we're going to hear nothing but accusations and excuses and be made subject to an endless stream of spin control.

This isn't a publicity crisis. It's a real crisis with real people with real lives. We should cope with adequately.

Your post doesn't really bother me too much. This is just something that I've been thinking about as of late. The Taliban could begin a series of massacres by executing people on the tarmac en masse and the president and defense minister could finally flip the nuclear switch and you would still have politicians, on both sides of the isle, who were primarily concerned with the number of votes that they were going to get in the next election.

What did you expect from Joe Biden’s government? It is quite impossible to repair something that is already broken and in a mess. I think in such complex situations like this one, is The president’s responsibility protect and take all the Americans to USA.

They'll almost do that much. Clearly, they should've had the foresight to have had an exit strategy, but, given their lack of one now, we can only cope with the situation at hand. The airport is in chaos right now. I don't know what people are doing on the runway. The quicker the flights can leave, the quicker people can be evacuated. They're all so desperate to leave and I hope that we don't abandon them.

Understandable. I even think that we should search more authorities. For example, What is going on with Russia or Putin? Why they do not make any decision? They were responsible for the mess occurred back between 1979 and 1989. I guess Russia can be an important authority in this context.

There's a crisis there and we should be thinking about how it is that we should respond and how we expect for our elected officials to. — thewonder

It’s too late for that. That is what has just played out.

Perhaps the above part "are dangerous to human life in violation of criminal laws" should be noted. Not that just any old anarchists.

What does all this have to do with philosopy?

Thanks, in part, I guess.

Actually, one should remember that for a long time, many years actually, the FBI has considered certain radical animal rights groups as domestic terrorists. Yes, in the same lot as white supremacists and right wing militias.

I am very sure that most animal rights activists aren't terrorists.

@Tobias
Many years ago we talked about the US behavior in Afghanistan. We talked about proportionality.
You taught me about how the vision was obscure and short sighted.
Today, I don't know that we have much to talk about, other than for me to say, you were right.
:broken:

The Animal Liberation Front does engage in direct action, namely the freeing of animals from facilities that do animal testing, which you could consider as sabotage, and, so, there's an odd, and wholly unjustified, in my opinion, pretext for treating them as such, as per a legal positivist interpretation of espionage, wherein it can just simply refer to that a person either advocates or carries out an act more or less just simply in violation of any law whatsoever, which I think has somehow carried over from the days of the First and Second Red Scare to the developing environmental and animal rights activism that began in the early 1970s.

I do completely agree that most, if not all, animal rights activists are just simply not terrorists, though.

It sounds somewhat incredulous at first, but I'm sure that there's an activist defense lawyer who, with considerable effort, will, and determination, could explain to you as to how what once, within the context of treating just simply being a so-called "radical" as a form of criminality, "espionage" later became "terrorism".

am very sure that most animal rights activists aren't terrorists. — ssu

They're amoral, misanthropic, dangerous lunatics. American ones are anyway.

That's only within the distorted form of recuperation that is born in response to the American discourse on such issues. Most animal rights activists are amicable enough people with whom you could have a cup of tea with and engage in debate on the philosophy of Peter Singer.

American ones are crazy. Like actually crazy.