OK, but terrorism is most certainly not a neutral term.
Especially for the US that word is used to demonise people.
Literally the worst thing on earth. Nobody is supposed to sympathise with them.
A reason why they and Isntreal often use it.
So you definitely shouldn’t.
The definition " the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" does not apply to Hamas.
Only that their aim, living in their own country can be seen as political.
If anything, the US/Isntreal military ticks all the boxes.
I think you’re missing my point and that we pretty much agree beside some semantics.
What I meant is that terrorism is a somewhat neutral term for me.
Luigi Mangione, the IRA, or even the resistance against Nazis during WWII were terrorists imho. But would I say any of these are evil? Fuck no.
What makes it ok or evil is why you do it.
OK, but terrorism is most certainly not a neutral term.
Especially for the US that word is used to demonise people.
Literally the worst thing on earth. Nobody is supposed to sympathise with them.
A reason why they and Isntreal often use it.
So you definitely shouldn’t.
The definition " the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" does not apply to Hamas.
Only that their aim, living in their own country can be seen as political.
If anything, the US/Isntreal military ticks all the boxes.
I’d say it is political. As much as any other human rights are.
Amen
I agree it isn’t in the cultural zeitgeist. But I’m genuinely trying to argue that it kinda should be.
e.g. the IRA were based terrorists.
Is it partly because it involves targeting civilians? Of course.
Is it because it can be effective in the context of asymmetric warfare? I’d say probably.