3 ms·

"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 a

"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.
  - archagon 3y ago
    That's the problem. I think this reveling over death is what makes people treat something as terrorism vs. warfare, even though the end result is largely the same. You dance over the naked body of an enemy and you're an inhuman animal; but you push a button to blow up 19 family members of a journalist and it's not even considered a war crime. (Heck, you're even allowed to gloat over those deaths on certain forums without immediately being labeled a monster!) The sadism of those who delight in rape and murder is deeply disturbing. But, in some ways, the depersonalized automation of murder, where you roughly target something on a screen and go get lunch while dozens of distant lives are torn apart, is even more perverse. At least the former doesn't scale. There's only so many fucked up people you can recruit. But almost anyone can push a button.
    - vivekd 3y ago
      Maybe some of the people in mainstream militaries are psychopaths who try and kill innocent families to spread terror. And I think some cases like the firebombing of Japan and Germany do fall under that. But on the whole I think I'm mainstream militaries such actions are the exception and goals and targets are military. In this case there was no parading over the body of an enemy. This wasn't an enemy this was a girl in her early 20s. How is she an enemy, she didn't do anything. We don't even know maybe she opposed Israel settlements and wanted a different approach to Gaza. The difference with groups like Hamas is they don't care, everyone is an enemy deserving of rape and torture, even random girls in their 20s. It's not the same thing, comparing this intentional attack to unintentional breaks of discipline or accidents in military contexts seems insane in my mind. The difference is Hamas intentionally targets civilians as their official policy, that's their organizational approach.
      - archagon 3y ago
        It's a messed up thing that happened, an atrocity. And Hamas is an evil organization. But go to Reddit and you can see people cheering in every article about Gaza being bombed, even if it's about innocents being killed. Is that so different from the oft-cited incident where people were celebrating in the street after the attack? It all comes from the same place: dehumanization of your opponent. > It's not the same thing, comparing this intentional attack to unintentional breaks of discipline or accidents in military contexts seems insane in my mind. When the military orders civilian infrastructure to be bombed, they know that innocents will die. It is a certainty. And yet they get to write it off as "collateral damage." I could argue it's a distinction with very little difference. It just so happens that one form of violence is societally acceptable while the other is not. "Law of war" is a comfortable lie we tell ourselves to avoid facing war's true human toll, but in the end, it's all still bodies in the rubble.

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.
- archagon 3y ago
  That's the problem. I think this reveling over death is what makes people treat something as terrorism vs. warfare, even though the end result is largely the same. You dance over the naked body of an enemy and you're an inhuman animal; but you push a button to blow up 19 family members of a journalist and it's not even considered a war crime. (Heck, you're even allowed to gloat over those deaths on certain forums without immediately being labeled a monster!) The sadism of those who delight in rape and murder is deeply disturbing. But, in some ways, the depersonalized automation of murder, where you roughly target something on a screen and go get lunch while dozens of distant lives are torn apart, is even more perverse. At least the former doesn't scale. There's only so many fucked up people you can recruit. But almost anyone can push a button.
  - vivekd 3y ago
    Maybe some of the people in mainstream militaries are psychopaths who try and kill innocent families to spread terror. And I think some cases like the firebombing of Japan and Germany do fall under that. But on the whole I think I'm mainstream militaries such actions are the exception and goals and targets are military. In this case there was no parading over the body of an enemy. This wasn't an enemy this was a girl in her early 20s. How is she an enemy, she didn't do anything. We don't even know maybe she opposed Israel settlements and wanted a different approach to Gaza. The difference with groups like Hamas is they don't care, everyone is an enemy deserving of rape and torture, even random girls in their 20s. It's not the same thing, comparing this intentional attack to unintentional breaks of discipline or accidents in military contexts seems insane in my mind. The difference is Hamas intentionally targets civilians as their official policy, that's their organizational approach.
    - archagon 3y ago
      It's a messed up thing that happened, an atrocity. And Hamas is an evil organization. But go to Reddit and you can see people cheering in every article about Gaza being bombed, even if it's about innocents being killed. Is that so different from the oft-cited incident where people were celebrating in the street after the attack? It all comes from the same place: dehumanization of your opponent. > It's not the same thing, comparing this intentional attack to unintentional breaks of discipline or accidents in military contexts seems insane in my mind. When the military orders civilian infrastructure to be bombed, they know that innocents will die. It is a certainty. And yet they get to write it off as "collateral damage." I could argue it's a distinction with very little difference. It just so happens that one form of violence is societally acceptable while the other is not. "Law of war" is a comfortable lie we tell ourselves to avoid facing war's true human toll, but in the end, it's all still bodies in the rubble.