4 ms·

The tweet in question: > Nice and professional work by the fighters in Jenin, keep killing them. This was in response to an attack on what seems to be terrori

The tweet in question: > Nice and professional work by the fighters in Jenin, keep killing them. This was in response to an attack on what seems to be terrorists hiding in a refugee camp. The guy has only been part of parliament since November too so this was pretty fast lol It is sort of interesting to consider the implications of this. Like Ukrainians are able to endorse killing russian solders, so at what point do wars become complex enough we don't give one side leeway? If he had been more clear about killing terrorists would this have been ok? Seems interesting to consider the implications

jakear 4y ago
Ye was banned for showing an image of a swastica intertwined with a star of david. Did I love the image? No. Was it far less of a call for violence than literally saying "keep killing them"? Most certainly. End of the day all that really matters is whether Twitter thinks advertisers want to have their creative appear next to the content in question. Anything else is ancillary. Call me capitalist, but I actually believe this is how it should be. Want to post what you want without worrying about what advertisers will think? Pay for the hosting.
bjourne 4y ago
Wouldn't a more apt analogy be a Russian politician congratulating their soldiers for killing "Ukrainian nazis"?
jltsiren 4y ago
The war between Ukraine and Russia is an old-fashioned war between sovereign states. The ethical frameworks for determining acceptable behavior in such wars have been well established, at least in the West. In contrast, the situation around "anti-terrorist operations" is ambiguous, largely because people use ambiguous language to describe them. They fail to distinguish between police operations where the suspected terrorists are civilians, non-international armed conflicts (according to the Geneva Conventions) between privileged combatants, and situations where privileged combatants become unprivileged due to their actions. And sometimes people just want to pretend that branding your opponents "terrorists" is enough to strip them (and sometimes also people around them) of their rights.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  This, of course, ignores the incredible amount of arms, money and direct personal support flowing into these groups from state actors, namely Iran, Qatar and to a lesser extent Turkey. Beyond that, every few years is another incident of a Hamas funded children's show or school book calling for the killing of all Jews. It does but recognize Israel's right to exist. What could it possibly be called other than a state sponsored terrorist group?
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    > What could it possibly be called other than a state sponsored terrorist group? But what does that mean? Is terrorism a crime? If so, anti-terrorist operations are police operations, with the usual consequences. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and the people involved in the operations may face criminal charges for unnecessary violence. Or are terrorists involved in an armed conflict? Then individual combatants are not liable for their actions, unless a court finds they have breached the rules of war. Those are the established frameworks we have. There is no widespread agreement on how to deal with the use of armed force against a group that does not follow the rules of war.
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      They use violence against random targets; their rockets fall on schools as much as military positions. They use civilians as human shields. They're no freedom fighters; they would be an iron boot upon the necks of the Palestinian people. They're not proper soldiers or mercenaries, as they kill without discrimination on their own behalf, not as part of a sovereign government under the rules of war. They have a Martyr's fund that pays families of people killed setting off explosive vests at temples and markets. Whatever you call them, "terrorist" is a perfectly fitting label. There may not be a classic framework for how to define the conflict, but that's just moving the goalpost. The closest thing we have would be for Israel to declare war on their international backers. It would certainly bring the issue to a head, but I doubt it would yield a long term resolution or be an option that causes the least amount of life lost.
    - 4y ago

jakear 4y ago

Ye was banned for showing an image of a swastica intertwined with a star of david. Did I love the image? No. Was it far less of a call for violence than literally saying "keep killing them"? Most certainly. End of the day all that really matters is whether Twitter thinks advertisers want to have their creative appear next to the content in question. Anything else is ancillary. Call me capitalist, but I actually believe this is how it should be. Want to post what you want without worrying about what advertisers will think? Pay for the hosting.

bjourne 4y ago

Wouldn't a more apt analogy be a Russian politician congratulating their soldiers for killing "Ukrainian nazis"?

jltsiren 4y ago

The war between Ukraine and Russia is an old-fashioned war between sovereign states. The ethical frameworks for determining acceptable behavior in such wars have been well established, at least in the West. In contrast, the situation around "anti-terrorist operations" is ambiguous, largely because people use ambiguous language to describe them. They fail to distinguish between police operations where the suspected terrorists are civilians, non-international armed conflicts (according to the Geneva Conventions) between privileged combatants, and situations where privileged combatants become unprivileged due to their actions. And sometimes people just want to pretend that branding your opponents "terrorists" is enough to strip them (and sometimes also people around them) of their rights.

zdragnar 4y ago
This, of course, ignores the incredible amount of arms, money and direct personal support flowing into these groups from state actors, namely Iran, Qatar and to a lesser extent Turkey. Beyond that, every few years is another incident of a Hamas funded children's show or school book calling for the killing of all Jews. It does but recognize Israel's right to exist. What could it possibly be called other than a state sponsored terrorist group?
- jltsiren 4y ago
  > What could it possibly be called other than a state sponsored terrorist group? But what does that mean? Is terrorism a crime? If so, anti-terrorist operations are police operations, with the usual consequences. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and the people involved in the operations may face criminal charges for unnecessary violence. Or are terrorists involved in an armed conflict? Then individual combatants are not liable for their actions, unless a court finds they have breached the rules of war. Those are the established frameworks we have. There is no widespread agreement on how to deal with the use of armed force against a group that does not follow the rules of war.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    They use violence against random targets; their rockets fall on schools as much as military positions. They use civilians as human shields. They're no freedom fighters; they would be an iron boot upon the necks of the Palestinian people. They're not proper soldiers or mercenaries, as they kill without discrimination on their own behalf, not as part of a sovereign government under the rules of war. They have a Martyr's fund that pays families of people killed setting off explosive vests at temples and markets. Whatever you call them, "terrorist" is a perfectly fitting label. There may not be a classic framework for how to define the conflict, but that's just moving the goalpost. The closest thing we have would be for Israel to declare war on their international backers. It would certainly bring the issue to a head, but I doubt it would yield a long term resolution or be an option that causes the least amount of life lost.
  - 4y ago