The flags of Hamas and Hezbollah were waved among the crowd of demonstrators during a march in New York City on Monday, reported the American right-wing media Freedom New TV (FNTV) and according to...
No, but I’m also not sure where you are going with that question. I suppose hezbollah flags directly have something to do with the Palestine protests, whereas nazi flags didn’t really have anything to do with the convoy, so maybe it’s more understandable to have hezbollah/hamas flags there. But they are still terrorists, right? Or are we OK with them now? I’m just not sure what you mean.
Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
The first part that needs to be dealt with is “unlawful.” Who’s laws? The issue is states get to arbitrarily define terrorism. If a state does terrorism, they get to say it’s something else.
Second: “violence and intimidation… in the pursuit of political aims.” OK, so all militaries do this part. That’s the point of a military. If this part is wrong then all states are wrong.
OK, so essentially the issue is defining “terrorism” as a bad thing. It isn’t necessarily. It’s using the means of the state against a state. That is all. It can be bad, but so can the actions of a state. It can also be good. If only states are allowed to use violence then they will use violence to suppress voices they disagree with, and there’s nothing that can be done about it.
We’ve got to stop using the term terrorism. It’s a term of the media. It isn’t useful in a real discussion. It is a term used to drive hatred and fear even if the ones using it are the ones on the receiving end of most of the violence. The media will never use the word to refer to state actions that they agree with. Stop using their language.
I guess it comes down to whether the laws are just or unjust, if the state that makes the laws is good or bad. When you have a clash of cultures that are not compatible with each other, or different states with incompatible ideas, there will be a winner and a loser, where the winner makes the laws and therefore determines what constitutes “terrorism”. But just because one culture won, doesn’t mean that it is just or good. It could be the good guys in charge, or just as easily the bad guys. It depends not so much on good or bad, but on military power. So how do you know when it’s the good guys in charge? If the “bad guys” of today, the “terrorists”, were in charge instead and you and I were on the other end of the power dynamic, would it be a better world? Would we be resorting to violence against citizens and against the state in order to further our political cause? Hard to say. Most of us would probably assimilate into their culture, but certainly some of us would be the new resistance, the new terrorists, killing innocents because we believed that strongly in our cause.
But this is all based on the assumption that laws and power dynamics will always exist, that they are in fact necessary. Someone will always be in charge, and others will wish they were, and will be willing to resort to violence to get the power or to break the laws. Do you envision a world where power dynamics and laws don’t exist? I can’t see it.
See, the difference is that the people at the convoy were given a chance to disavow the Nazis as the media talks to the organizers. The people at these protests are called Hamas sympathizers and the organizers are not even contacted by the media.
But the organizers at these anti-genocide protests seem never to be interviewed by the media. Do you think it’s because they’re hiding?
Yeah maybe they were contacted, I don’t recall. And yes the organizers should be available for interviews, and should also be given a chance to clarify what they stand for, what their message is and who the big backers are. That way you can get an idea of what they ACTUALLY stand for and not just what the leader says.
Some of the people in that movement thought so. From things they read on the internet, they were led to believe that covid was part of a plan to kill millions of people.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet, kids. It may lead you to get so emotional over genocide claims that you end up being associated with some actual genocidal groups.
Thinking there is a genocide because of stupidity is not the same as an actual genocide. Which is what is going on.
People claim abortion is genocide too. It is also not genocide. Just because you claim something is genocide, it doesn’t mean it is. Experts tend to have to weigh in. And they have in the case of Gaza and have determined it is a genocide.
So maybe don’t conflate the two, unless you are one of those kooks who believe COVID was a genocide, something not a single expert believes.
So… was COVID a genocide? Do you think those stupid unJesusy scientifimagicians are wrong and the Queen of Canada is right or is this a totally different situation?
Did the convoy involve a genocide?
No, but I’m also not sure where you are going with that question. I suppose hezbollah flags directly have something to do with the Palestine protests, whereas nazi flags didn’t really have anything to do with the convoy, so maybe it’s more understandable to have hezbollah/hamas flags there. But they are still terrorists, right? Or are we OK with them now? I’m just not sure what you mean.
I don’t agree with them but this:
That’s a loaded question.
Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
The first part that needs to be dealt with is “unlawful.” Who’s laws? The issue is states get to arbitrarily define terrorism. If a state does terrorism, they get to say it’s something else.
Second: “violence and intimidation… in the pursuit of political aims.” OK, so all militaries do this part. That’s the point of a military. If this part is wrong then all states are wrong.
OK, so essentially the issue is defining “terrorism” as a bad thing. It isn’t necessarily. It’s using the means of the state against a state. That is all. It can be bad, but so can the actions of a state. It can also be good. If only states are allowed to use violence then they will use violence to suppress voices they disagree with, and there’s nothing that can be done about it.
We’ve got to stop using the term terrorism. It’s a term of the media. It isn’t useful in a real discussion. It is a term used to drive hatred and fear even if the ones using it are the ones on the receiving end of most of the violence. The media will never use the word to refer to state actions that they agree with. Stop using their language.
I guess it comes down to whether the laws are just or unjust, if the state that makes the laws is good or bad. When you have a clash of cultures that are not compatible with each other, or different states with incompatible ideas, there will be a winner and a loser, where the winner makes the laws and therefore determines what constitutes “terrorism”. But just because one culture won, doesn’t mean that it is just or good. It could be the good guys in charge, or just as easily the bad guys. It depends not so much on good or bad, but on military power. So how do you know when it’s the good guys in charge? If the “bad guys” of today, the “terrorists”, were in charge instead and you and I were on the other end of the power dynamic, would it be a better world? Would we be resorting to violence against citizens and against the state in order to further our political cause? Hard to say. Most of us would probably assimilate into their culture, but certainly some of us would be the new resistance, the new terrorists, killing innocents because we believed that strongly in our cause.
But this is all based on the assumption that laws and power dynamics will always exist, that they are in fact necessary. Someone will always be in charge, and others will wish they were, and will be willing to resort to violence to get the power or to break the laws. Do you envision a world where power dynamics and laws don’t exist? I can’t see it.
See, the difference is that the people at the convoy were given a chance to disavow the Nazis as the media talks to the organizers. The people at these protests are called Hamas sympathizers and the organizers are not even contacted by the media.
But the organizers at these anti-genocide protests seem never to be interviewed by the media. Do you think it’s because they’re hiding?
Yeah maybe they were contacted, I don’t recall. And yes the organizers should be available for interviews, and should also be given a chance to clarify what they stand for, what their message is and who the big backers are. That way you can get an idea of what they ACTUALLY stand for and not just what the leader says.
Some of the people in that movement thought so. From things they read on the internet, they were led to believe that covid was part of a plan to kill millions of people.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet, kids. It may lead you to get so emotional over genocide claims that you end up being associated with some actual genocidal groups.
Thinking there is a genocide because of stupidity is not the same as an actual genocide. Which is what is going on.
People claim abortion is genocide too. It is also not genocide. Just because you claim something is genocide, it doesn’t mean it is. Experts tend to have to weigh in. And they have in the case of Gaza and have determined it is a genocide.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/anatomy-of-a-genocide-report-of-the-special-rapporteur-on-the-situation-of-human-rights-in-the-palestinian-territory-occupied-since-1967-to-human-rights-council-advance-unedited-version-a-hrc-55/
So maybe don’t conflate the two, unless you are one of those kooks who believe COVID was a genocide, something not a single expert believes.
So… was COVID a genocide? Do you think those stupid unJesusy scientifimagicians are wrong and the Queen of Canada is right or is this a totally different situation?