“I condemn Hamas’ attack in the strongest possible terms. No child and family should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing oppression and occupation in the region.”
Yes, completely expected that despite her calling for a ceasefire, you would find something objectionable that is also 100% disqualifying. Weird that what you chose is the condemnation of a terrorist attack but okay.
Resistance to colonization is not terrorism. Its a really weird point coming from people who praise so much your own fight against the British colonization
It is literally, by definition, terrorism in this case. What you meant to say, if you put any thought into your position, is that terrorism isn’t always bad. A significant weaker force using gorilla tactics and politics to fight a stronger force is the only hope they have to succeed. No one can expect Palestine to resist using conventional warfare.
Terrorism is a tool. The US engages in terrorism constantly. The police enforce their rule (in the US) by using terrorism. Just about every government uses terrorism. It’s just only ok (as decided by the elites) when it’s state sanctioned and by a stronger force against a weaker one.
“Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims.” I believe every definition of terrorism will be similar. Nothing about that definition has anything to do with morality though. Terrorism can be acceptable. It’s only people who have bought into the mainstream ideas that think terrorism is always wrong. I would say you need to re-evaluate your ideals if you think Hamas can be correct but terrorism must be bad. One of those does not follow from the other. Terrorism can be used for good, and there’s no reason to think otherwise.
And sure, terrorism can be used to defeat terrorism. You can have counter-terrorist terrorists. I would personally argue they always are, and I think it’d be difficult to argue against that.
Terrorizing military targets is completely different from terrorizing civilians. Civilian terrorism has never been an effective tool for the people doing the terrorism. It has always resulted in a huge backlash that basically destroys whatever movement it’s working for.
Here she wants a ceasefire on Oct. 9: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine
And here she calls one of the methods a war crime: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-introduces-amendment-banning-israel-using-us-aid
Nov. 15 looks like where she’s solidified the public position more firmly, and with associates https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/24-members-congress-call-biden-administration-establish-ceasefire-protect
“I condemn Hamas’ attack in the strongest possible terms. No child and family should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing oppression and occupation in the region.”
Yeah, cant take it seriously.
Yes, completely expected that despite her calling for a ceasefire, you would find something objectionable that is also 100% disqualifying. Weird that what you chose is the condemnation of a terrorist attack but okay.
Resistance to colonization is not terrorism. Its a really weird point coming from people who praise so much your own fight against the British colonization
It is literally, by definition, terrorism in this case. What you meant to say, if you put any thought into your position, is that terrorism isn’t always bad. A significant weaker force using gorilla tactics and politics to fight a stronger force is the only hope they have to succeed. No one can expect Palestine to resist using conventional warfare.
Terrorism is a tool. The US engages in terrorism constantly. The police enforce their rule (in the US) by using terrorism. Just about every government uses terrorism. It’s just only ok (as decided by the elites) when it’s state sanctioned and by a stronger force against a weaker one.
By definition by who? Can Hamas have saying in that too?
I define it as counter terrorism, since its against the terrorist occupation of palestine by settlers
“Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims.” I believe every definition of terrorism will be similar. Nothing about that definition has anything to do with morality though. Terrorism can be acceptable. It’s only people who have bought into the mainstream ideas that think terrorism is always wrong. I would say you need to re-evaluate your ideals if you think Hamas can be correct but terrorism must be bad. One of those does not follow from the other. Terrorism can be used for good, and there’s no reason to think otherwise.
And sure, terrorism can be used to defeat terrorism. You can have counter-terrorist terrorists. I would personally argue they always are, and I think it’d be difficult to argue against that.
Terrorizing military targets is completely different from terrorizing civilians. Civilian terrorism has never been an effective tool for the people doing the terrorism. It has always resulted in a huge backlash that basically destroys whatever movement it’s working for.