4 ms·

A side note: The terrorist attacks (what the CCP states) in Xinjiang was rampant. Every years hundreds of innocent people were killed. And due to media control,

A side note: The terrorist attacks (what the CCP states) in Xinjiang was rampant. Every years hundreds of innocent people were killed. And due to media control, those reports seldom see publicity outside of small forums in the first a few months following the events. ps1: Whether or not those attacks are done by terrorists, or oppressed minorities, I have no comments. ps2: This not a defend. Merely suggest one of the motivating factors. Whether or not CCP intentionally let that happen so they can do this, I have no comments.

bilbo0s 9y ago
"...Whether or not those attacks are done by terrorists, or oppressed minorities, I have no comments...." ??? If "...oppressed minorities..." commit acts wherein "...hundreds of innocent people were killed..." aren't they "terrorists"? Or am I thinking about this whole thing wrong?
- thinkpad20 9y ago
  One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I think the parent post simply meant that they were not passing judgment on the justification of the violence.
  - whooshee 9y ago
    If those attackers attacked police or gov't, they may call themselves a freedom figher. But If a guy randomly kills innocent people to show their agendas, he is definitely a terrorist, which was what happened in Xinjiang and other cities in China by some terrorist groups. Unfortunately, there was some western press quoted terrorist when they were covering those attacks.
- samplatt 9y ago
  Pretty sure OP was just adding that in so that they'd avoid needless discussion regarding emotionally-charged labels like 'terrorist'. The term almost certainly applies, but lets talk about the acts and the environment itself, rather than perpetrators of horrific acts and their presumable-but-technically-unknown motivations.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- tanilama 9y ago
  You are entering a very dangerous territory. The terrorists in US and west can genuinely believe they are oppressed as well. To use violence to advance their own agenda on unrelated people is nevertheless evil.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  A more neutral definition of terrorism is that it is organized violence for a political end that is directed largely at the population in order to make them feel fear. This is in contrast to usual military action, which is directed mainly at the military on the other side.
  - smnrchrds 9y ago
    Under this definition, were Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings acts of war or terrorism? I am sure many military actions conducted today, even those by US and allies would fall under your definition of terrorism.

bilbo0s 9y ago

"...Whether or not those attacks are done by terrorists, or oppressed minorities, I have no comments...." ??? If "...oppressed minorities..." commit acts wherein "...hundreds of innocent people were killed..." aren't they "terrorists"? Or am I thinking about this whole thing wrong?

thinkpad20 9y ago
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I think the parent post simply meant that they were not passing judgment on the justification of the violence.
- whooshee 9y ago
  If those attackers attacked police or gov't, they may call themselves a freedom figher. But If a guy randomly kills innocent people to show their agendas, he is definitely a terrorist, which was what happened in Xinjiang and other cities in China by some terrorist groups. Unfortunately, there was some western press quoted terrorist when they were covering those attacks.
samplatt 9y ago
Pretty sure OP was just adding that in so that they'd avoid needless discussion regarding emotionally-charged labels like 'terrorist'. The term almost certainly applies, but lets talk about the acts and the environment itself, rather than perpetrators of horrific acts and their presumable-but-technically-unknown motivations.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tanilama 9y ago
You are entering a very dangerous territory. The terrorists in US and west can genuinely believe they are oppressed as well. To use violence to advance their own agenda on unrelated people is nevertheless evil.
woodandsteel 9y ago
A more neutral definition of terrorism is that it is organized violence for a political end that is directed largely at the population in order to make them feel fear. This is in contrast to usual military action, which is directed mainly at the military on the other side.
- smnrchrds 9y ago
  Under this definition, were Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings acts of war or terrorism? I am sure many military actions conducted today, even those by US and allies would fall under your definition of terrorism.