5 ms·
"for political reasons" I would say this is more of a security issue. If the protests had been peaceful, and had there been no deaths, I doubt this request wo
by pyoung 14y ago
"for political reasons"
I would say this is more of a security issue. If the protests had been peaceful, and had there been no deaths, I doubt this request would have ever been made.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago>If the protests had been peaceful [...] I doubt this request would have ever been made // So USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists but does what they want as long as there's a threat of violence?
- Aloisius 14y agoWhen did violent mobs become terrorists?
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoWhat's the approved definition of terrorist that you are using? From Collins, via dictionary.com - "systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal". Seems to fit?
- Aloisius 14y agoThe key word there is systematic. A mob is not methodical in its plans nor has any regularity, therefore, it does not systematically use anything.
- pbhjpbhj 14y agoThe mob was the specific instrument in this instance. Mobs are used regularly for similar purposes. IMO the question at hand is whether as soon as some group threatens violence the USA kowtow. This appears to be the case here - the USA administration intervening in the free speech of a citizen in order to further the aims of a group because that group has threatened (and acted) violently.