3 ms·
It used to be a political tool for furthering potentially legitimate political or ideological interests. These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimat
by x5n1 11y ago
It used to be a political tool for furthering potentially legitimate political or ideological interests. These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds. So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome.
- netcan 11y agoLets not use it at all. Lets call them enemies. ISIS are an enemy, that's unambiguous. They would not dispute it. I'm not saying lets not apply moral judgement. Call them assholes, brutes, whatever.
- meepmorp 11y ago> It used to be a political tool for furthering potentially legitimate political or ideological interests. By "it," I assume you mean terrorism, as a tactic. > These days it has been corrupted to further illegitimate, religious interests. That's out of bounds. Why? What's specifically out of bounds about religiously inspired terrorism, but acceptable about purely political and/or ideological terrorism? And where does the boundary get drawn - Northern Ireland, for example, has had no small amount of trouble with terrorism where the political and religious motives are inextricably linked. > So let's make a rule to only use it in cases where it applies to illegitimate political and ideological interests. Otherwise, let's call them potential freedom fighters, depending on outcome. Or perhaps your post was merely sarcasm.
- pekk 11y agoCalling something terrorism never implied favorably that the interest was legitimate, so it isn't a corruption to apply it to hated groups like ISIS, it's just a description. The phrase "freedom fighter" has never been usable in an objective way.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]