Anyone who calls Palestinians or their armed resistors terrorists Should be banned

[Khansaheeb]

Yeah that October attack where they killed innocent women and children was just freedom fighting.


They're terrorists and the world will call them as such. Deal with it.

Stop parroting Israeli propaganda , we know they and their patrons are grotesque liars its been proven beyond a doubt

 

[Khansaheeb]

Terrorist attacks should be treated as terrorist attacks be it USA committing terrorist attacks daily in Muslim countries for the last two decades or anyone else. We should also call out the supporters of these terrorist attacks even if it’s our own state. Oct 7 is no different than B-52 levelling whole villages in Afghanistan or Iraq. While Oct 7 produced victims on Oct 7, depleted uranium munitions used by American terrorists continue to create victims till this day in the countries it invaded.

Agree, Oct 7th was not a terrorist attack under internation law. International law says as Palestinians are occupied they have the right to resist their occupiers by any means possible, including armed resistance. So by definition their fight back on Oct 7th was not a terrorist act even thought the effect may have been.

 

[Oscar]

Calling someone terrorist is not respectful. Calling dead women and children under terrorists either directly or indirectly terrorist is not acceptable.

In my view the approach is simple

If you are calling Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists based your opinion and using UN designation as base - fine.

We could disagree on whether they qualify based on the situation but I cannot prevent your opinion based on international law.

However, that also means anyone can call the IDF terrorists as well.

Now, if you call women and children in Palestine terrorists - take the pink slap and get the hell out of this forum.

If you say they are supporting terror - same process - because they are fighting for a right to exist.

The counter argument could be so are Israelis but since they are an occupying force it is not possible for an occupying force to fight for its existence in a place it’s taken forcibly - any support for IDF occupation will not get you labeled a terrorist but a supporter of state terrorism.

But we wont ban you.

 

[Khansaheeb]

Yeah that October attack where they killed innocent women and children was just freedom fighting.


They're terrorists and the world will call them as such. Deal with it.

Don't know what law you and some other members are aware of but international law says as Palestinians are occupied they have the right to resist their occupiers by any means possible, including armed resistance. So by definition their fight back on Oct 7th was not a terrorist act even thought the effect may have been.

 

[Khansaheeb]

In my view the approach is simple

If you are calling Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists based your opinion and using UN designation as base - fine.

We could disagree on whether they qualify based on the situation but I cannot prevent your opinion based on international law.

However, that also means anyone can call the IDF terrorists as well.

Now, if you call women and children in Palestine terrorists - take the pink slap and get the hell out of this forum.

If you say they are supporting terror - same process - because they are fighting for a right to exist.

The counter argument could be so are Israelis but since they are an occupying force it is not possible for an occupying force to fight for its existence in a place it’s taken forcibly - any support for IDF occupation will not get you labeled a terrorist but a supporter of state terrorism.

But we wont ban you.

The main question arises how is it decided whether a military act is a terrorist act and how to differentiate between the two? The act and the effect need to be diffrentiated. Indeed the Oct 7th action was a military repsonse by the Palestinians and the by product was terror on the Israeli occupiers. If the act's sole purpose was to instill terror then indeed it was a terrorist act but if the act had clear militaristic goals then it wasn't. The scale and objectivity of the Palestinian action indicated that it was a well planned military action and hence not terrorism. But the Zion propaganda machine with the US Zion military power behind it persuaded some countries otherwise and those which had a vested interest in turmoil.

 

[gangsta_rap]

OK. Instead of the word "terrorist" let's call them puvac's (people using violence against civilians). Hamas and Hizbollah are puvacs.

cisgendered white male is losing his marbles here

 

[clutch]

OK. Instead of the word "terrorist" let's call them puvac's (people using violence against civilians). Hamas and Hizbollah are puvacs.

Freedom fighters. Otherwise STFU!

 

[Oscar]

The main question arises how is it decided whether a military act is a terrorist act and how to differentiate between the two? The act and the effect need to be diffrentiated. Indeed the Oct 7th action was a military repsonse by the Palestinians and the by product was terror on the Israeli occupiers. If the act's sole purpose was to instill terror then indeed it was a terrorist act but if the act had clear militaristic goals then it wasn't. The scale and objectivity of the Palestinian action indicated that it was a well planned military action and hence not terrorism. But the Zion propaganda machine with the US Zion military power behind it persuaded some countries otherwise and those which had a vested interest in turmoil.

Killing of innocents deliberately - especially women, children and elderly is terrorism. Regardless of the motivation, this was proven in the life of the prophet and his guidelines for warfare.

Unless those Kibbutz leaders specifically said “kill our women, old men and children” - it was wrong no matter how much suffering their own people caused.

It’s the simple difference of character.

There are arguments on them all being soldiers because they all have to serve - the child has not picked up a rifle yet so they’re out - and if people aren’t picking up weapons yet then they get taken PoWs but not massacred.

Uniformed soldiers - go wild and no international or religious law could say otherwise.

 

[Developereo]

The main question arises how is it decided whether a military act is a terrorist act and how to differentiate between the two?

The US media have completely lost the plot long time ago. They used to call Taliban attacks on US soldiers as 'terrorist attack'.

Apparently, attacking US soldiers in uniform on a military base is a 'terrorist attack'.

 

[CarterA259]

Killing of innocents deliberately - especially women, children and elderly is terrorism. Regardless of the motivation, this was proven in the life of the prophet and his guidelines for warfare.

Unless those Kibbutz leaders specifically said “kill our women, old men and children” - it was wrong no matter how much suffering their own people caused.

It’s the simple difference of character.

There are arguments on them all being soldiers because they all have to serve - the child has not picked up a rifle yet so they’re out - and if people aren’t picking up weapons yet then they get taken PoWs but not massacred.

Uniformed soldiers - go wild and no international or religious law could say otherwise.

This is not a fair war.
Besides , the Israelis had never followed any moral rules.
The zionists have been massacring the palestinians for over half century.
The palestinians have the every rights to use every means against the occupation.

 

[RescueRanger]

So where does self defence end and aparthide & collective punishment begin? Who decides that? Some bloated braggart in a 10k rossini suit?

 

[Vikramaditya1]

That'll be ironic though. The countries you live in and where this page is hosted designated them as terrorist. Hamas, PIJ and Hezbollah.

 

[شَاھِین شَاہِ لَولَاک]

Technically, you can't do that if the UN (a puppet org) has designated them as such. It might also encourage people to post things that would get them in legal trouble in their country.

Better to drive home the point by calling the IDF as a terrorist organization, and Israel as the ideological successor to Nazi Germany, driven by an ideology of racial/religious superiority.

UN has not designated hamas a terrorist organisation. only european countries and few of its puppets have declared them so. in fact UN recognises palestinian right to resist the brutal illegal occupation by any means necessary. so technically the moderators can ban members who call hamas a terrorist organisation.

 

[شَاھِین شَاہِ لَولَاک]

The Gaza genocide has shown who the real evil genociding terrorists are . I propose to the Admins that anyone who calls Hamas , Hizbollah etc terrorists should be banned. Slandering freedom fighters shouldn't be acceptable and by implication those who use such terms are condoning the mass murder and starvation of hapless civilians. I would have started a poll if I knew how, couldn't find the option. Click like if you agree!

10000000% agree. time to ban the genocide sympathisers.

 

[RescueRanger]

That'll be ironic though. The countries you live in and where this page is hosted designated them as terrorist. Hamas, PIJ and Hezbollah.

Again without being snarky to members here, the definition of terrorism is defined by the UN. That is one that is widely accepted.

The point the OP is trying to make is one of semantics.