292
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
292 points (100.0% liked)
World News
38968 readers
2262 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nation states commit acts of war not acts of terror. If you think about it any act you would call terrorism would also be causus belli.
Any violence knowingly committed against civilians by a nation state should be considered an act of terrorism.
That is also an act of war. National militaries don't commit acts of terrorism. They commit crimes against humanity, war crimes, or the justification of war aka causus belli.
You missed the key word there which was should be.
Attacking a hospital is outright terrorism imo and has no place in war. Attack a supply depot or some other strategic point but a fucking hospital? A place dedicated to treating any human being regardless of politics, status, etc. blown up.
Dogs. The lot of them. May the toll of the war bell ring loudest and the longest among them and each of their supporters.
No I didn't miss it. These words mean things already. Terrorism is something non-state entities engage in. When nations do it they are called acts of war.
If a bunch of American burn down a bar in Canada that would be terrorism. If the US army did the same thing it would be a legal justification for Canada to declare war. That's because militaries are acting on behalf of the country while random citizens are not.
There's no reason for this to change unless you hold to the idea that somehow terrorism is worse than acts of war or war crimes which is pretty childish and ignorant.
Okay so you’re arguing pedantics. Let’s do it.
Can you find any official global sources that define terrorism vs an act of war?
I couldn’t but I only checked for a short while.
What does arguing pedantics mean? Note pedantics isn't a word.
Yes the UN codes regarding war crimes.
Arguing pedantics = conversational way of saying that you are being pedantic.
Define terrorism not war crimes, obviously. Nobody was arguing for the definition of war crimes, and just because something isn’t a formal war crime, doesn’t mean it’s not something else (which would possibly include but not limit to only terrorism)
You know what they meant.
You are still being pedantic arguing about semantics.
If you have to obscure your animus behind a veil of linguistics then you don't actually have one.
Is that a big enough vocab for you
It is still an example of terrorism, it is also a good Cassus Belli.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Except they are. Terrorists are non-state organizations.
A terrorist is someone who uses terror to enact change.
By all rights we were terrorists when we went into iraq and Afghanistan.
We went in and used fear and terror of us reaction to change things
No we were an invading army
Okay, well since you like being pedantic and hiding behind semantics here is the Oxford definition.
You can spend all day yelling at them.
I have called you out on your what i will assume is misinformation instead of disinformation.
It's your move, do you argue against the factual definition?
First you didn't not include a definition. Second, dictionaries aren't authoritative sources but rather descriptive ones. If you need that explained to you then you are ill equipped for any academic discussion.
Correct. There is no authority in language except French. So your pedantic arguments are also flawed. Your own argument works against you
TBF it is called the Lingua Franca. Obviously French is correct.
Sorry, what is called the Lingua Franca? I missed which part you're referencing
I only made the French comment because the French government has an official entity granted the authority to define the official French language.
The lingua Franca is the main tongue used in the world at the time. It's called that because it used to be French, now it's English.
You're one of today's lucky 10,000!
Ah, you were referencing English. Thank you.
Ah! I learned something recently about lingua franca. It was a combination of French and Italian jargon. https://www.britannica.com/topic/lingua-franca
What are today's lucky 10,000?
I've never got a double, thank you for being my first!
https://xkcd.com/1053/
There is also ones for other languages.
Regardless the point is a dictionary does not define words but rather describes how they are used. Even if it covered national militaries, which it does not, it wouldn't support your claim. In fact it would be an "appeal to authority"
Okay, I'm out, have fun troll.
Im not a troll you just do not seem to understand how to have a discussion.
Your reference to academic debate in a previous comment is hilarious. Academics know how to stay on topic.
The original comment you replied to was referencing Israel's behavior as terroristic. You provided a counter argument that nation states cannot conduct terrorism based on the definition of the term terrorism. When provided with evidence supporting the opposing claim, you say the evidence is not valid because it is not authoritative. You then say there is no authoritative source for such evidence. You then use a classic goal post argument method of saying, "even if your argument is invalid, that doesn't work because x," rather than focusing on the original argument. You also misuse appeal to authority. Appeal to authority as a fallacy is only a fallacy when the item in question isn't explicitly defined by that authority. When you moved the goal post, you operated under the assumption of your continued argument that dictionaries are authoritative. However, your language is imprecise enough that you're going to claim you didn't make that assumption.
That is not proper academic debate method. That is political debate method. This is the kind of shit that makes it difficult to make meaningful progress today. But hey, since we're not doing proper academic debate anyway, I'll indulge in some ad hominem. You're a terrible person for trying to confound a serious issue with irrelevant pedantic arguments and arguments in bad faith. Fuck off. No one cares if "terrorism" - as defined by you as some authority on words - can be applied to nation states. A nation state committed an act meant to cause terror in civilians (in order to take their land). People understood that as the intent, which is the purpose of words anyway.
You are right I did forget here you go.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ter·ror·ist
noun
a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"
Similar:
bomber
arsonist
incendiary
gunman
assassin
desperado
hijacker
revolutionary
radical
guerrilla
urban guerrilla
subversive
anarchist
freedom fighter
insurrectionist
insurrectionary
adjective
unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
"a terrorist organization"
You'll note nowhere on that list of synonyms are terms used for militaries. That's not by accident. It's because national militaries aren't terrorist groups.
Personally, I don't recognize the 1948 decision to create this nation state out of thin air, displacing an already existing nation and illegally seizing their land. So I'm cool to keep talking about it as a terrorist organization, yeah? Okay, thanks.
Don't recognize it? There are 9 million people living in it, and worldwide recognition. Also the 48 decision was UN backed, meaning the nations of the world think otherwise. Jeez, you can not like someone while still admitting their existence.
Why do you equate Jewish people with Israel? That's a zionist stance, not a Jewish stance. Of course Jewish people exist - but let's not be arrogant enough to define a group of people by their one common characteristic and lump them all in together into one state, yeah?
I have no issues with Jewish people. At least not with those living outside Israel - those who moved there willingly did so at the expense of their own morals (provided they already had a good home somewhere else), as they knew they are displacing an existing culture. I do have some issues with:
The creation of Israel, done by lobbying the correct people with the correct incentives (the promise of keeping Muslims in the region at bay, and of being a trade partner for the backers), without any claim on the land - you know, as opposed to the people actually fucking living there at the time
Rich people exploiting the situation of Palestine pre-1948 to get richer. Also post-1948, let's not act like selling arms to the Israeli slaughterhouse to continue their genocide on Muslims isn't profitable for some immoral fucks.
The ethnic cleansing that's been going on in Palestine over the last 70 years
Governments of the world pretending human lives don't matter and that regions of land don't belong to the people inhabiting them (and who have done so for generations).
Appealing to those governments to form your opinion. The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan. Wanna stroke their dicks for it, or can we agree some massive conglomerate of rich and powerful old cunts that trade in blood don't really constitute a proper standard of morality?
Establishing a state based on a religion. I like the division of church and state, I think it's a good thing.
And so many others that I don't have the energy to type, as this is really not a black and white subject, but it's for sure not as gray as it's being painted. It's just another government installed in a region by external influences with superior firepower, with no rhyme or reason other than making money, like so many others in the world.
At the end of the day, this is my own opinion and the world as a whole doesn't seem to agree - especially since the people in charge don't really care if others agree or not, and since it's not a hot topic or something that impacts us daily, there will never be the type of mass protests necessary to stop funding this terrorist organization. And I'll probably die with this opinion, and nothing will change. In the meanwhile, what the fuck is your excuse for buying into the propaganda and supporting the 70 years of slaughter of a group of people?
Firstly, where did I mention jews? Israel have non-jews in it. But it's a valid point, Israel is a jewish point - a home for the jews after the Holocaust - which 100% needed to happen since they're persecuted all over the world. Even if you have no problem with jews, muslim states and nazis do.
Secondly, you shift all the blame of the situation on Israel, while they do have lots to blame for, so does the Palestinian leadership. They're the ones teaching hate speech in schools, promoting violence against civilians, and not looking for a peaceful resolution benefitting their people.
Thirdly, yes Israel likes being jewish and is working hard to keep being jewish, but that's their whole shtick. Does anybody blame Jordan or Egypt for being muslim by law? I certainly don't hear them as much as Israeli protestors. Which again further solidifies the need for a jewish state - there isn't a safe place for jews in this world but that state. Wanting to take that away is just wrong.
Also, I'd like you to keep in mind a simple point. How would arabs live under Israeli law (you can see examples in Israel right now - they have human rights) vs. how would jews live under Palestinian law (hint: they won't). Yes, it's wrong keeping gaza and the west bank under military power, but tbh what else can Israel do when suicide bombers arrive every day (and get praised heavily for it). The only solution is 2 states. Now after what Hamas did, I super doubt it is an option, and probably a total occupation of the land is eminent. Extremism brings extremism, and what Hamas did will make everything worse. That attack worsened the status quo, in the worst possible direction.
There was no existing nation. Pre-47, it was British territory and before that, it was seized from the Ottoman Empire after WW1.
Simplistic statements about historical claims to territory will never work here. Nor will "keeping score" about whose team is getting revenge for what previous massacre and who's killed the most children (what a fucking thing to have to spell out. holy shit.).