6 ms·

I like that they are not forcing the word "terrorism". As much as Oct. 7 actions are despicable, "terrorism" is now just a loaded political term that no one car

by mrpopo 3y ago

I like that they are not forcing the word "terrorism". As much as Oct. 7 actions are despicable, "terrorism" is now just a loaded political term that no one cares to define. Are the Israeli settlers terrorists? The Russian army? Wagner? It just distracts attention from the facts.

mrangle 3y ago
Sorry, October 7th was unambiguously terrorism by any civilization's definition. The only disagreement can come from those who are sympathetic to the event. The word terrorism isn't loaded, it isn't political, and it isn't undefineable. It's a term with a concrete definition. Those are the facts.
- stormfather 3y ago
  What is your definition of terrorism?
  - mrangle 3y ago
    https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism Start there. The message to which I responded attempts to disqualify October 7th as terrorism by rhetorically suggesting that other events may or may not be terrorism. Which is a particulalry dumb fallacy to attempt to advance. Whether or not anything else is terrorism has no bearing on whether or not October 7th was. Even if it is all terrorism. If they want to justify october 7th, they should drop the particularly unskilled act of cowardice via wordsmithing. Their immoral disposition is revealed when they attempt to equate "Israeli Settlers" (civilians living their lives, and who didn't own guns let alone specifically focus them on civilians) to those who specifically targeted civilians for mass murder as a means of intimidation and sparking a War. Which is precisely the logic of Hamas. So again, they should drop the act and be more direct about 10/7.
    - archagon 3y ago
      You are reading way too much malice into that comment. It’s not unreasonable to dissuade labeling something as terrorism if it leads to flame wars across the site for more ambiguous situations. In no way does such an editorial action imply support for terrorism and murder, even if you strongly disagree with the reasoning. Instead of lashing out and accusing fairly innocuous people of being terrorist sympathizers and anti-semites across several different threads, maybe step away from the computer for a bit?
      - mrangle 3y ago
        "Calm down bro" isn't an argument that flies within this topic. It reads as an inability to handle an argument within it. Perhaps it is you who needs to step away, due to not being able to handle disagreement with your tack. Or are you so irrationally insistent on it that you cannot? For what other terrorism events did you suggest not using the terrorist label for the purpose of decorum? In what Universe is such a suggestion avoidant of flame wars? Please.
        archagon 3y ago
        I’m not the OP nor a Wikipedia editor. If it were up to me, the event would unquestionably be labeled an act of terror. But I certainly wouldn’t slander people who wanted to reduce usage of the word, since it is a highly charged word politically with somewhat ambiguous boundaries. Shall we go back and add a “terrorism” label to the firebombing campaigns of WWII? Thousands of civilians were melted in their basements, quite intentionally, in order to break the nation’s will to fight.
        vivekd 3y ago
        We use the word war crimes for that. This isn't the same thing because there was no fighting at the time. It's not like there was an ongoing military engagement between Israel and Palestine on October 7. In this case there is tension and bad things happening at the border with sporadic fighting. Then on October 7 Hamas on its own volition crossed the border and did attacks on regular people. Just imagine a different situation. Imagine Russian army started shooting Ukranian kids at a dance party, paraded the naked body of one of the kids in camera after they raped tortured and killed her Would we still be having this intellectual debate about whether the word terrorism is overused and wether it can apply here. You know what I think, I think this is the bigotry of low expectations. Some western intellectuals instinctively apply different and lower standards to people of other races.
  - vivekd 3y ago
    I think it's like pornography, there's grey areas and vagueness but some things are unambiguously terrorism. Like gunning down kids at a rave party or private homes. That's pretty unambiguously an act of terror rather than a legitimate military act. I'm not saying Israel has never done anything wrong. But when Hamas calls for a day of terror - it's not reasonable to interpret them as anything other than a terrorist group. They're not exactly hiding the fact that they're terrorists.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  this is a new account making declarations
- karmakaze 3y ago
  Googled it: > Definitions from Oxford Languages the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. "the fight against terrorism" I don't like this definition. It's subjective based on whose laws are being considered, which are also subject to change. So basically anything done by our side is lawful and exempt.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    Assuming for a second that you mean for this to apply to the event under discussion. What you are implying is that Hamas was operating as a Warring Party, and treating civilians as combatants. Ergo they aren't terrorists by their own definition. Laws being subjective, selectively applied, and therefore meaningless in these situations. Have it your way. Now Hamas has War. Moreover, it has insisted that civilains are combatants. Lucky for the Palestinians, Israel is more moral than Hamas and will not operate in the same manner. Frankly, counter to the apparent interests here of those here who are so offended by the terrorist label, Israel operating solely under terrorism law to bring Hamas to justice probably would have been better for the Palestinians. Though impossible. But it's obvious that the actual motive here is to try to thread the impossible logic needle that says that Hamas should be left alone after 10/7 because of reasons. Which is a crazy fantasy.
    - jakupovic 3y ago
      >Lucky for the Palestinians, Israel is more moral than Hamas and will not operate in the same manner. Why is this true? Because you say so?
    - enterprise_cog 3y ago
      Murdering over 8000 civilians intentionally — over a thousand being children — is more moral than Hamas killing 1400 IDF soldiers, settlers, and some civilians? How’s that calculus work?
      - Gud 3y ago
        The number of deaths is not how to keep the tally on who is more moral and who isn’t. Hamas deliberately went out of their way to murder, mutilate and rape innocent civilians, while also hiding amongst their own civilians. Meanwhile, IDF are targeting Hamas and civilians are stuck in the crossfire. They have also developed advanced countermeasures to negate the effects of Hamas rocket artillery (the iron dome).
- jakupovic 3y ago
  > The only disagreement can come from those who are sympathetic to the event. You don't have to be sympathetic to a terror event to ask questions, you present a false dichotomy
- mrpopo 3y ago
  No, those aren't the facts, you just fell into the exact problem I was trying to explain. The facts are that a number of Hamas members have entered Israel territory and done a number of horrible things that some of us may have heard on tv. That's what Wikipedia should get right, and not whether such or such action is an act of "terror". Of course such a debate also belongs on Wikipedia but must be separated. Same with the current IDF operations in Gaza, Wikipedia should document their actions, and the discussions on whether they are committing war crimes or a genocide should be separated.

by mrpopo 3y ago

mrangle 3y ago

Sorry, October 7th was unambiguously terrorism by any civilization's definition. The only disagreement can come from those who are sympathetic to the event. The word terrorism isn't loaded, it isn't political, and it isn't undefineable. It's a term with a concrete definition. Those are the facts.

stormfather 3y ago
What is your definition of terrorism?
- mrangle 3y ago
  https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism Start there. The message to which I responded attempts to disqualify October 7th as terrorism by rhetorically suggesting that other events may or may not be terrorism. Which is a particulalry dumb fallacy to attempt to advance. Whether or not anything else is terrorism has no bearing on whether or not October 7th was. Even if it is all terrorism. If they want to justify october 7th, they should drop the particularly unskilled act of cowardice via wordsmithing. Their immoral disposition is revealed when they attempt to equate "Israeli Settlers" (civilians living their lives, and who didn't own guns let alone specifically focus them on civilians) to those who specifically targeted civilians for mass murder as a means of intimidation and sparking a War. Which is precisely the logic of Hamas. So again, they should drop the act and be more direct about 10/7.
  - archagon 3y ago
    You are reading way too much malice into that comment. It’s not unreasonable to dissuade labeling something as terrorism if it leads to flame wars across the site for more ambiguous situations. In no way does such an editorial action imply support for terrorism and murder, even if you strongly disagree with the reasoning. Instead of lashing out and accusing fairly innocuous people of being terrorist sympathizers and anti-semites across several different threads, maybe step away from the computer for a bit?
    - mrangle 3y ago
      "Calm down bro" isn't an argument that flies within this topic. It reads as an inability to handle an argument within it. Perhaps it is you who needs to step away, due to not being able to handle disagreement with your tack. Or are you so irrationally insistent on it that you cannot? For what other terrorism events did you suggest not using the terrorist label for the purpose of decorum? In what Universe is such a suggestion avoidant of flame wars? Please.
      - archagon 3y ago
        I’m not the OP nor a Wikipedia editor. If it were up to me, the event would unquestionably be labeled an act of terror. But I certainly wouldn’t slander people who wanted to reduce usage of the word, since it is a highly charged word politically with somewhat ambiguous boundaries. Shall we go back and add a “terrorism” label to the firebombing campaigns of WWII? Thousands of civilians were melted in their basements, quite intentionally, in order to break the nation’s will to fight.
        vivekd 3y ago
        We use the word war crimes for that. This isn't the same thing because there was no fighting at the time. It's not like there was an ongoing military engagement between Israel and Palestine on October 7. In this case there is tension and bad things happening at the border with sporadic fighting. Then on October 7 Hamas on its own volition crossed the border and did attacks on regular people. Just imagine a different situation. Imagine Russian army started shooting Ukranian kids at a dance party, paraded the naked body of one of the kids in camera after they raped tortured and killed her Would we still be having this intellectual debate about whether the word terrorism is overused and wether it can apply here. You know what I think, I think this is the bigotry of low expectations. Some western intellectuals instinctively apply different and lower standards to people of other races.
- vivekd 3y ago
  I think it's like pornography, there's grey areas and vagueness but some things are unambiguously terrorism. Like gunning down kids at a rave party or private homes. That's pretty unambiguously an act of terror rather than a legitimate military act. I'm not saying Israel has never done anything wrong. But when Hamas calls for a day of terror - it's not reasonable to interpret them as anything other than a terrorist group. They're not exactly hiding the fact that they're terrorists.
mistrial9 3y ago
this is a new account making declarations
karmakaze 3y ago
Googled it: > Definitions from Oxford Languages the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. "the fight against terrorism" I don't like this definition. It's subjective based on whose laws are being considered, which are also subject to change. So basically anything done by our side is lawful and exempt.
- mrangle 3y ago
  Assuming for a second that you mean for this to apply to the event under discussion. What you are implying is that Hamas was operating as a Warring Party, and treating civilians as combatants. Ergo they aren't terrorists by their own definition. Laws being subjective, selectively applied, and therefore meaningless in these situations. Have it your way. Now Hamas has War. Moreover, it has insisted that civilains are combatants. Lucky for the Palestinians, Israel is more moral than Hamas and will not operate in the same manner. Frankly, counter to the apparent interests here of those here who are so offended by the terrorist label, Israel operating solely under terrorism law to bring Hamas to justice probably would have been better for the Palestinians. Though impossible. But it's obvious that the actual motive here is to try to thread the impossible logic needle that says that Hamas should be left alone after 10/7 because of reasons. Which is a crazy fantasy.
  - jakupovic 3y ago
    >Lucky for the Palestinians, Israel is more moral than Hamas and will not operate in the same manner. Why is this true? Because you say so?
  - enterprise_cog 3y ago
    Murdering over 8000 civilians intentionally — over a thousand being children — is more moral than Hamas killing 1400 IDF soldiers, settlers, and some civilians? How’s that calculus work?
    - Gud 3y ago
      The number of deaths is not how to keep the tally on who is more moral and who isn’t. Hamas deliberately went out of their way to murder, mutilate and rape innocent civilians, while also hiding amongst their own civilians. Meanwhile, IDF are targeting Hamas and civilians are stuck in the crossfire. They have also developed advanced countermeasures to negate the effects of Hamas rocket artillery (the iron dome).
jakupovic 3y ago
> The only disagreement can come from those who are sympathetic to the event. You don't have to be sympathetic to a terror event to ask questions, you present a false dichotomy
mrpopo 3y ago
No, those aren't the facts, you just fell into the exact problem I was trying to explain. The facts are that a number of Hamas members have entered Israel territory and done a number of horrible things that some of us may have heard on tv. That's what Wikipedia should get right, and not whether such or such action is an act of "terror". Of course such a debate also belongs on Wikipedia but must be separated. Same with the current IDF operations in Gaza, Wikipedia should document their actions, and the discussions on whether they are committing war crimes or a genocide should be separated.