u/TheOubliette

If all it takes to cause famine is one country no longer sending aid, you are extremely vulnerable to that country. The desirable alternative is food sovereignty - under conditions of international pressure there may be scarcity but not starvation.

The purpose of these aid programs is cynical: they are to create exactly this kind of dependency. It is why food sovereignty is considered a threat and is actively undermined by the IMF.

What we are seeing is what threat is being made when a country is made dependent on "aid": starvation. Same as in Gaza. This is the calculus the US and its cronies force upon the global south: submit to insecurity and become a dependency or try to go your own path and become villified and a target to be destroyed.

The former path is guaranteed death and suffering, which is why nations led by those with a coherent political program choose the latter and invest in food sovereignty as an anti-imperialist measure.

Thanks!

I would say that if a word has been misused for a century it actually just has a new meaning. And I'm not aware of it ever being used consistently.

Fun fact that runs parallel to your point: it's not terrorism if you only destroy property.

Terrorism is defined as using violence (or the threat of violence), against civilians, in pursuit of a political goal. All 3 requirements must be met for it to be terrorism: violence, civilians, politics.

Many people who only damage property are still labeled as terrorists by the powers that be. The dictionary can be quite misleading, as it does not really analyze inconsistent usage, particularly for political or propaganda purposes.

For example, "ecoterrorists". Classically labeled as such even when just destroying property. Or even sometimes just for slowing down logistics. Predominately First Nations protesters and activists were labelled "ecoterrorists" by Rick Orman, citing examples like chaining themselves to equipment.

The inconsistent usage has at least two means of biased use. I've already mentioned one, which is using the term for those damaging private property or slowing down enterprise, i.e. equating damage to private property as violence (when private enterprise seizes land or destroys water this is never called ecoterrorism). The other is in inconsistent application: it is a label only routinely used by the targets of capitalist-run states. When their states destroy entire cities and target civilians, it is not called terrorism. When their targets go after a politician insteas of strictly military installations, suddenly they are terrorists. Hell, they can be called terrorists even when going after only military targets. The actusl use of the term corresponds to the means used and the political and ethnic background of those engaging in the acts more than *whether* the acts are violence for political (isn't everything political?) ends. Terrorism is when a car bomb and not a JDAM.

The real meaning of terrorism must be understood through describing its actual mainstream use. Descriptivism not prescriptivism, lest we miss the reality of propaganda. This is important because the term will continue to be used as I described and to justify rounding up protesters that occupy buildings or block highways or burn down a Tesla dealership. It doesn't really matter ehat the dictionary says, tge law will say enough, the cops will arrest on orders of preventing "terrorism", the judge will convict and sentence based on calling a dumpster fire terrorism, and one might even get sent to a black site to contain such "dangerous" people, "terrorists".

And this is not new. Anarchists and other cool people were lazily labelled exactly the same way over a century ago for the same types of acts.

lmao trying to pretend that trying to leave a building you've been locked in by force, by cops, is *protester* violence.

You are, to put it mildly, full of shit. The only violence was the police beating and hurting protesters.

Please try to be more honest going forward.

lmao did you even read what I wrote about conflating private property damage and violence?

Sure, but let's step back and analyze it a little more.

Protest itself does not achieve political change. Its usefulness is in direct action or in recruiting those present into further action, education, and organizations. Liberal protests are state-sanctioned parades. Real protests tend to have an actual action to take, demands to be met, people to impact, costs to incur on others.

The terminology of "peaceful protest" is already poisoned and should be questioned. The media and politicians - and those propagandized downstream, all conflate private property destruction and violence. If a protest breaks windows, suddenly it is no longer "peaceful" and can be rejected by the propagandized as invalid and not to be supported. The US is full of such good little piggies, happy to align with the ruling class picking their pocket and doing actual violence because they exist exclusively in a world of capitalist propaganda.

Under these auspices, all direct action that the capitalist system wants to crush is, will, and has been labelled terrorism. It's already done this for private property destruction by environmentalists, peace activists during all major wars (except WWII, where American Nazis were coddled and of course did not damage private property), labor organizers, anti-segregation organizers, socialists, communists, Mexicans, Chinese, Native Americans, etc. They happily do it again against anti-genocide protesters, particularly because they can play on the islamophobic use of the terrorism label at the same time. Like all fascistic logic, they must frame themselves as the true victims, so they also happily call every critic of Israel an antisemite.

All of this bombards the US population 24/7. Americans exist in a haze of accusations and terms they barely understand, trying to slot it into what could only charitably called an ideology - the naked reactionaries in red and the obfuscated reactionaries in blue.

All of this is to say that the greatest barrier in the US is education, and education begins with agitation, e.g. these protests in any form. Get as many people as possible to show up to the next thing, to organize the next thing, and spread knowledge.

How it came together is that Houthis started taking out jets from aircraft carriers and the US ran home, being unable to implement their only remaining military strategy: bombing brown civilians with impunity.

They don't really care about that unless it's organized. A few fires here and there is handled by insurance and poses no threat to capital. All the more reason to get organized!

Be afraid so that we can cut your benefits and you'll forgive us due to nationalism.

The Global South is far more developed in this regard and is consequently where most of the action is in the class war. They fight against comprador governments, anti-indigenous oppression, anti-worker policies with far more militancy and organization and popularity than anything in any OECD country. Of course, the people of the Global South are not politically monolithic and they also have liberals, monarchists, fascists, etc.

All correct opinions are heavily biased.

You are wrong both semantically and in emphasis. I have had to say this 3 times already. I pointed out that it's wrong to put so much emphasis on the former, it is distracting from the injustice, and your response was to be contrarian while ignoring what I've argued.

Do some self-criticism.

If you think just a bit harder about what it means for cops to be in on lynchings you will realize that you are drawing attention to an ahistorical and false semantics debate rather than keeping focus on the injustice posted. Just like these Reddit liberals trying to split hairs.

Ask yourself whether it was normal for cops to be at lynchings, then re-read my previous comment.

Reddit liberals are in here trying to make this about their own misunderstanding if a term.

If this was your first response to hearing about occupiers attacking and disappearing someone, reconsider your priorities.

This is the kind of red scare sinophobia that liberals are all complicit in as well. This is why there have been anti-China propaganda pushes: so that you will accept and maybe even help implement siniphobic policies.

Do you believe an invasion is well-supported by very slow, large, connected barges? Militarily this would only make sense for slightly more efficiently supplying an occupation.

I think you mean something different from this, but there were actual Jewish Nazis during the (thankfully short-lived) Third Reich. And the Zionists that act like Nazis today sometimes consider themselves Jewish, though I question the compatibility of ethnic cleansing settler colonialism and Judaism.