Comment by light_hue_1

Comment by light_hue_1 2 days ago

8 replies

They didn't indiscriminately set off thousands of bombs in supermarkets and homes. That's not at all an accurate description of what happened. That would be terrorism.

They gave a terrorist organization the ability to give its most important operatives a bomb to wear. And then they detonated that bomb. That's not terrorism. It's about as targeted of an attack as you can imagine. Blowing up terrorists is objectively a good thing.

abalone 2 days ago

They detonated the bombs in supermarkets and homes. It is 100% an accurate description of what happened.

If an enemy targeted members of American political parties that have sponsored terrorism and brutal dictatorships, detonating thousands of bombs in supermarkets and homes maiming nearby civilians and killing children, would you also call this “objectively a good thing?”

  • dijit 2 days ago

    The bombs didn't even have enough force to kill 99.6% of people who had them attached physically to their waists. Semantically, that's a pretty big difference.

    • [removed] 2 days ago
      [deleted]
    • imtringued 2 days ago

      I don't know what to tell you, but "warning" people like this is generally how terrorists do it.

      • dijit 2 days ago

        clearly this was an attack of military targets. not a warning.

ignoramous 2 days ago

Ah, that magic word terrorist to justify any heinous crime. Funny how it always is folks in the Middle East who are.

  • oytis 2 days ago

    Not always. There was IRA, there was RAF, there was ETA. It's just in Middle East this problem is much bigger today, to the point where terrorist organisations can have whole countries under their control.