Like, libs who think russian troops did all the things they’ve been accused of in western media. It kinda makes sense for them to cheer on Ukraine’s latest terror attack if they truly believe that russians are doing all the warcrimes at the same time. I know in my life it feels like an insurmountable challenge to get someone to read an article from anywhere else in the world.
So, what’s your tolerance for someone who truly thinks they’re basing their worldview on reality but it actually just regurgitating propaganda?
performed by non-state actor (anarchists cough cough). its definition is molded by the powers that be bombing middle east, not from its origins. Earlier “terrorists” of the 19th century were kinda clean on the civilian fatalities, all told, much better than military of the time. now, this isn’t endorsement of some shit cia-qaeda gets up to, but one has to be kinda clear on the terms, if we saying it’s non-state actors involvement - we are those, and seems like an unnecessary gimme to the security state. so we could argue either every war crime is also terrorism as well, or that terrorism definition is actually meaningless (aside from the court of law). kkk activities are terrorist for example? it fits all the boxes (non-state, political goals, change through inspiring fear).
the functional difference between a mortar operator in fallujah and suicide bomber is that one of them gets away with it. thus the terror laws which conveniently allows usa to label everyone they don’t like terrorist, ignore rules of war and do whatever