Don’t fall into the trap of ‘picking sides’ over Gaza: Hamas’s attacks were unconscionable, razing Gaza to the ground would be abhorrent. In both cases, basic humanity is at stake --- [Opinion] - Feddit
feddit.de
  • Pxtl@lemmy.caEnglish
    17·
    1 year ago

    I’ve seen plenty of contrarian tankies who are pro Hamas. Often the same “anti imperialists” who hate the West so much they think supporting Ukraine is bad.

    Personally I’m of the opinion that both sides are genocidal and anybody with a clear idea what to do there is lying, but I’ve been banned from !worldnews@lemmy.ml as “genocide denial” for agreeing with Biden that we should be suspicious of the claimed death numbers coming out of Palestine because both sides have a history of lying about violent acts in their conflict.

    • bermuda@beehaw.orgEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      I know a few people in real life who are referring to them as freedom fighters.

      • Pxtl@lemmy.caEnglish
        12·
        1 year ago

        Idunno, I don’t fuss about that because I’m perfectly capable of thinking that they’re both terrorists and freedom fighters.

        They’re fighting for the freedom of Gaza… but they use terrorism tactics, refuse to abide by ceasefires, and have genocidal beliefs.

        Those don’t seem mutually exclusive for me.

        We all contain multitudes.

        But that said, somebody who goes to “freedom fighter” as their first noun for them, that’s kind of a red flag.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          6·
          1 year ago

          I’m perfectly capable of thinking that they’re both terrorists and freedom fighters.

          It’s not just that they “can” be both, it’s more that they “have to” be both.

          “Freedom fighter” is a term reserved for the underdog, the one who can’t use sheer military power to terrorize a whole region (like a couple US Carrier Strike Groups with nukes) or some surrounding countries (like a US funded Israeli military with some nukes of their own). Established democracies and recognized states, can use their “military” to terrorize a whole population by just threatening to bomb the living shit out of the civilians, while “freedom fighters” can only terrorize through surprise attacks and extreme brutality… aka, by being “terrorists”.

          Bottom line: all “freedom fighters” need to be “terrorists”, otherwise they’d be called “a military”.

          somebody who goes to “freedom fighter” as their first noun for them, that’s kind of a red flag.

          That’s a bit harsh, what if they understand the two are synonyms? 🤷

          • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            Terrorism is a tactic, so no, not all “freedom fighters” are terrorists. There are and have been throughout history many guerrilla groups that don’t use terrorism tactics but that could still be called “freedom fighters.”

            • jarfil@beehaw.org
              4·
              1 year ago

              Hm… can you give an example?

              Off the top of my head, all I can come up with associated with “freedom fighters”, is using both guerrilla tactics and terrorism to fight against some superior enemy. The next closest thing, are non-terrorist “freedom movements” like Gandhi’s (which comes with a separate can of worms).

        • bermuda@beehaw.orgEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          The last part of what you said was what I was hoping to get at. To a few people I know, theyre freedom fighters and rebels before terrorists.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      2·
      1 year ago

      A problem with Lemmy (and a bigger one with Reddit) is that conversations can include context and nuance, while mods don’t always can or want to take them into account, so you better make each comment stand on its own, or you can get the boot “out of the blue”.