this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
172 points (97.8% liked)

TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name

6826 readers
790 users here now

/c/TenForward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!

Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.

~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.

~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.

~ 3. Use spoiler tags. Use spoiler tags in comments, and NSFW checkbox for posts.
This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.

~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.

~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.

~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.

~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'

~ 8. No Political Upheaval. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.

Fun will now commence.


Sister Communities:

!startrek@lemmy.world

!theorville@lemmy.world

!memes@lemmy.world

!tumblr@lemmy.world

!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!


Creator Resources:

Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)

Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

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.

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:

  1. He used violence against the general public
  2. He took credit for that violence
  3. He made his demands clear for the attacks to stop

Compare that to Garrack.

  1. He used violence against a single person and his immediate staff (i.e. an assassination), the public wasn't threatened
  2. He never took credit for that violence, in fact, he tried to pretend it wasn't him
  3. 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.

  1. They used violence against a single person and his immediate staff (i.e. an assassination), the public wasn't threatened
  2. They took credit, it wasn't a false flag
  3. 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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You haven't demonstrated anything, other than your inability to read a definition and understand it.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I love how you simultaneously claim I'm strawmanning you and defend the positions I'm criticizing.

No, people don't have to be afraid for it to be terrorism, no, the location isn't relevant to whether it's terrorism (we've been over this, a bomb that goes off on a plane over international waters is still terrorism), no, the perpetrator doesn't have to take credit for it. None of those criteria are included anywhere in either your made up definition or the actual definition.

But again, it doesn't matter because you're a fundamentally unreasonable person. You don't care about logic or evidence or consistency. You'll just respond to this with another meaningless snipe like "oNlY iF yOu DoN't KnOw WhAt A t Is," because that's the highest capacity for thought that you possess.

You said "Terrorism is the use of violence against the general public to change behaviours or policies." Location is not in that definition. Whether people are terrified (which the Romulans were) is not included in that definition. Whether the perpetrator takes credit is not included in that definition. How on earth can you not see how completely full of shit you are when you keep adding new, arbitrary stipulations to exclude this one instance of terrorism??

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I love how you simultaneously claim I'm strawmanning you and defend the positions I'm criticizing.

Are you unable to read, as well as unable to think? I said your strawmanning was when you claimed it was my entire argument:

You:

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.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It was the only objection you raised at that point, so yes, it was your entire argument. Whether you had some super-secret argument in your head that you weren't saying isn't relevant to the argument you actually made.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 50 minutes ago (1 children)

You have trouble reading huh?

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 39 minutes ago

God, you're so smarmy when you can't think of an actual point. Do you not realize how transparent it is?