4 ms·
If it were well defined, there wouldn't be any debate on it. And no one is interested in your designated definition. The only valid definition is: "terrorism i
by vFunct 1y ago
If it were well defined, there wouldn't be any debate on it. And no one is interested in your designated definition.
The only valid definition is: "terrorism is anything I don't like"
This is why Republicans called it a "terrorist fist bump"
- mariusor 1y agoIt's not "my designated" definition. It's the one in the dictionary. And my implication was that even when I or you agree with the goals of an organization, when what they're doing is "terrorizing" people, then they are terrorists. I know it's uncomfortable to think that we might side with the terrorists, god knows we've been conditioned by countless hours in counter-strike to think they're the bad guys, but sometimes that's what we feel, and we should make peace with that. It's OK to agree with the goals, but disagree with the means.
- vFunct 1y ago[flagged]
- bbg2401 1y agoMassacres are legitimate military tactics? Do military tactics include atrocities?
- TFYS 1y ago[flagged]
- tomhow 1y agoPlease don't comment in the flamewar style on Hacker news. We want HN to be a place where people can discuss difficult topics, but that requires people to heed the guidelines and comment respectfully. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- HDThoreaun 1y agoThere isnt a debate. Hamas is a terrorist organization.
- vFunct 1y agoAgain,, please don’t normalize the US government’s viewpoint. The vast majority of the world says they’re freedom fighters.