Terrorist is just a loaded word. Like Hamas is a “terrorist organization” but the state of Israel isn’t.
Terrorism often boils down to “enacting violence against systems of oppression”. Is the IDF a terrorist organization? What about the DoD? These organizations use violence to perpetuate existing systems of oppression, causing vastly more harm than any domestic “terrorist” organization ever will.
While these 11 people were being killed by the state for being “terrorists”, the CIA was backing fascists (contras) to overthrow democratically elected socialists in Nicaragua. Is the CIA a terrorist organization?
This misses the point. If we’re being technical, Hamas/MOVE is obviously a terrorist organization. Trying to convince me that they are isn’t going to change my position, because I already believe that.
It’s just that in-so-far as Hamas/MOVE etc. are terrorist organizations, the CIA/IDF are far larger ones. They inflict terror and use violence for political gain, the only difference is they’re the ones in power so they decide who is a terrorist.
That’s the problem with the word. The IDF and Hamas are both violent terror groups that shouldn’t exist, but Hamas only exists as a result of the IDF’s genocidal campaign, and yet we only call Hamas a terror group. It’s deeply problematic.
Calling this whataboutism is like responding to the claim “people have a biological urge to reproduce” as a naturalistic fallacy.
You’re using the word in sorta the right ballpark (I did make a comparison, e.g a “what about”), however not every time someone says “what about X” are they committing a fallacy.
My entire point was how terrorist is a loaded word, that we only use it to describe one side (the side not in power), even though the technical definition obviously fits organizations in power. Making a comparison to demonstrate my literal only point isn’t fallacious.
There were native american terror groups, yet the U.S government that literally genocided millions of native Americans isn’t a terror organization, despite their use of terror and violence to achieve political goals. It’s a word with clear problematic etymology.
The CIA supporting Fascism in South America has fuck all to do with a confrontation between militarized police and a cult on May 13th 1985 in Philadelphia. If you think that’s not whataboutism then you’re dumb as a sack of bricks.
The word “terrorist” was used, and getting into the etymology of the word is best exemplified by how large “non-terrorist” organizations operate exactly like large terrorist organizations.
Yeah but what about the CIA, right? Those are an example of terrorists, right? But yeah what about Hillary Clinton’s Emails? But what about the cost of recycling solar? What about it, right? What about those, you got an answer for those?
Yup, you can also make comparisons to irrelevant things. Not all comparisons are fallacious.
The way the CIA/IDF behave compared to other “terrorist” organizations is relevant to the etymology of the word. I don’t see how the Grand Canyon relates to any point you or I made.
Terrorist is just a loaded word. Like Hamas is a “terrorist organization” but the state of Israel isn’t.
Terrorism often boils down to “enacting violence against systems of oppression”. Is the IDF a terrorist organization? What about the DoD? These organizations use violence to perpetuate existing systems of oppression, causing vastly more harm than any domestic “terrorist” organization ever will.
While these 11 people were being killed by the state for being “terrorists”, the CIA was backing fascists (contras) to overthrow democratically elected socialists in Nicaragua. Is the CIA a terrorist organization?
No man they literally threatened to bomb other countries for shit happening in the us, that’s everyone’s definition of terrorism.
This misses the point. If we’re being technical, Hamas/MOVE is obviously a terrorist organization. Trying to convince me that they are isn’t going to change my position, because I already believe that.
It’s just that in-so-far as Hamas/MOVE etc. are terrorist organizations, the CIA/IDF are far larger ones. They inflict terror and use violence for political gain, the only difference is they’re the ones in power so they decide who is a terrorist.
That’s the problem with the word. The IDF and Hamas are both violent terror groups that shouldn’t exist, but Hamas only exists as a result of the IDF’s genocidal campaign, and yet we only call Hamas a terror group. It’s deeply problematic.
no, the CIA and IDF are “freedom fighters”
Correct.
That’s whataboutism, multiple wrongs don’t make a right and none of MOVE’s actions are forgiven by this argument.
Calling this whataboutism is like responding to the claim “people have a biological urge to reproduce” as a naturalistic fallacy.
You’re using the word in sorta the right ballpark (I did make a comparison, e.g a “what about”), however not every time someone says “what about X” are they committing a fallacy.
My entire point was how terrorist is a loaded word, that we only use it to describe one side (the side not in power), even though the technical definition obviously fits organizations in power. Making a comparison to demonstrate my literal only point isn’t fallacious.
There were native american terror groups, yet the U.S government that literally genocided millions of native Americans isn’t a terror organization, despite their use of terror and violence to achieve political goals. It’s a word with clear problematic etymology.
The CIA supporting Fascism in South America has fuck all to do with a confrontation between militarized police and a cult on May 13th 1985 in Philadelphia. If you think that’s not whataboutism then you’re dumb as a sack of bricks.
Yeah no need to get this hostile.
The word “terrorist” was used, and getting into the etymology of the word is best exemplified by how large “non-terrorist” organizations operate exactly like large terrorist organizations.
Yeah but what about the CIA, right? Those are an example of terrorists, right? But yeah what about Hillary Clinton’s Emails? But what about the cost of recycling solar? What about it, right? What about those, you got an answer for those?
Exactly. And saying “what about” isn’t always a fallacy. That’s like thinking anyone says a natural fact they’re committing a naturalistic fallacy.
But what about the Grand Canyon?
Yup, you can also make comparisons to irrelevant things. Not all comparisons are fallacious.
The way the CIA/IDF behave compared to other “terrorist” organizations is relevant to the etymology of the word. I don’t see how the Grand Canyon relates to any point you or I made.