3 ms·
Well the definition is flawed, or as the British say, the law is an ass. Terrorism is widely understood to be the deployment of military force against civilian
by anigbrowl 2mo ago
Well the definition is flawed, or as the British say, the law is an ass.
Terrorism is widely understood to be the deployment of military force against civilian populations. Of course states do this all the time, but 'state terrorism' is basically dependent on whether politicians in country A align with country B or not; if they don't, they'll call out state abuses in country B as state terrorism, if not they'll say it's law and order.
Regardless of these nuances, extending the definition to include any kind of property damage is just laughably opportunist.
- veeti 2mo ago>any kind of property "Any kind" is quite the load bearing argument there. Let me remind you Europe is under an ongoing land invasion, which is why fucking with its defensive capabilities is unlikely to solicit much sympathies.
- inigyou 2mo agoYou mean Russia invading Ukraine, right? Were these jets helping Ukraine or were they helping Israel?
- graemep 2mo agoNeither. They were part of anti-ISIS/ISIL operations.
- anigbrowl 2mo agoIn Europe?
- echoangle 2mo agoBad argument. If you sabotage military equipment in Europe, obviously you also indirectly lower the military potential of that army somewhere else. The planes in Europe aren’t there to be paperweights, they are either being maintained there for service or are there as a deterrent and need to be reinforced by other planes when damaged.
- inigyou 2mo agoBad argument. You're saying the French were wrong to sabotage Hitler's airplanes because they might've been used after the war to defend Germany from the USSR.
- echoangle 2mo agoIf you think European defense is analogous to hitler defending Germany in WWII, we should have started the discussion at a very different point. Do you really think that?
- harimau777 2mo agoSo the idea is that Russia is planning on invading the UK?