David Cameron urges BBC to describe Hamas as terrorist organisation

Foreign secretary’s call comes after group releases video of British-Israeli hostage it says died after being wounded in Israeli airstrike

David Cameron has urged the BBC to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation, reviving an accusation that the corporation shies away from a valid description of the Islamist group that is holding Israeli hostages.

The UK foreign secretary told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that the organisation should reconsider its guidelines in light of a video released by Hamas showing the British-Israeli hostage Nadav Popplewell, who the group said had died in Gaza.

Hamas released a statement on Saturday saying the 51-year-old had died after being wounded in an Israeli airstrike a month ago. The video showed him with a black eye.

aard,
@aard@kyu.de avatar

Making an exception for one organisation, pressured by politicians, would be harmful. BBC has the following policy about neutral reporting:

We don’t use loaded words like “evil” or “cowardly”. We don’t talk about “terrorists”. And we’re not the only ones to follow this line. Some of the world’s most respected news organisations have exactly the same policy

HubertManne,
HubertManne avatar

this is very relevant. thanks.

SuddenDownpour,

Sounds like the BBC’s explanation on their use of language regarding Hamas is relevant here:

John Simpson responded to the criticism in a post on X. “British politicians know perfectly well why the BBC avoids the word ‘terrorist’, and over the years plenty of them have privately agreed with it,” he wrote.

"Calling someone a terrorist means you’re taking sides and ceasing to treat the situation with due impartiality.

“The BBC’s job is to place the facts before its audience and let them decide what they think, honestly and without ranting.”

He said: “It’s about making sure that all audiences trust the information that we’re giving them, that they don’t think the BBC is coming at this from one side of the conflict as opposed to the other, and that we steer a course though this in very difficult circumstances in which our journalism can continue to be factual, accurate, impartial and truthful.”

The corporation’s editorial guidelines say the word “terrorist” can be “a barrier rather than an aid to understanding”.

They say: "We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened.

"We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber’, ‘attacker’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’, ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’.

“We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.”

Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism. Now, if you use this standard, the Israeli government also uses violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism, therefore the Israeli government is also a terrorist organization. Would David Cameron be okay with the BBC maintaining their neutrality and describing both sides as terrorists?

fine_sandy_bottom, (edited )

I don’t want to defend Israel but it feels a bit like you intentionally used a loose definition of terrorism to make your point.

Israel & Netanyahu (?) are all sorts of wrong but IDK if “terrorist” is the best adjective.

Edit: my apologies all, I seem to have made a comment which is not completely 100% derisive of Israel and it’s behavior. I promise I’ll do better.

qevlarr,
@qevlarr@lemmy.world avatar

Why not?

fine_sandy_bottom,

Why?

qevlarr,
@qevlarr@lemmy.world avatar

Because of what they’re saying. Actions aimed at innocent civilians for a political goal, that’s terrorism. If you’d apply that definition to one, then also apply it to the other

fine_sandy_bottom,

My point is, that definition is so vague it includes every country in the world.

ShepherdPie,

So what? What makes them any different? Does going through some bureaucratic process first legitimize the murder of civilians for political reasons?

fine_sandy_bottom,

It makes the use of the term terrorism an “appeal to emotion”.

This type of logical fallacy is how people prop up weak arguments.

There’s plenty of more appropriate words to describe Israel’s behaviour, but the comment I replied to is using “terrorism” given the emotional significance.

Ironically, his comment cites the BBC editorial guidelines explaining my point. Terrorism is an emotionally charged term.

ShepherdPie,

Nobody stated that “terrorism” isn’t an emotionally charged term.

It’s kinda funny you’re talking about weak arguments when you completely avoided the question in my comment. It seems your only justification for why Israel’s (or many other government’s) actions can’t be labeled terrorism is “everyone else is doing it too” but that doesn’t really make a difference nor does it make the label incorrect.

fine_sandy_bottom,

Ok mate. Everyone is a terrorist. How alarming.

ShepherdPie,

Still avoiding the question?

fine_sandy_bottom,

No a bureaucratic process does not legitimise murder it just means that “terrorism” is not the best term for this form of murder.

Why does the BBC not use this term?

Why is Cameron so keen to label Hamas as a terrorist organisation?

It’s because there are emotional connotations.

If the best argument you can make requires words like “terrorist” then you don’t have much of an argument.

ShepherdPie,

Literally nobody is claming that it doesn’t have emotional connotations, so I don’t know why you keep harping on that.

If the best argument you can make requires words like “terrorist” then you don’t have much of an argument.

Not sure what argument you’re talking about here. It’s also not disputed that Israel has, and is continuing to, slaughter tens of thousands of civilians, including infants.

This whole thread started with someone stating that Hamas are terrorists, but if you’re going to apply that to them then you also need to apply to Israel.

fine_sandy_bottom,

Goodness gracious. This is so tedious.

My original point was, and still is, calling Israel a terrorist organisation is an “appeal to emotion” - use of emotional language to bolster an argument.

There are much more appropriate ways to describe their behavior and express your disapproval.

The BBCs editorial guidelines, to which I am replying, very clearly explain why the use of the term “terrorist” is not useful.

Cameron want’s BBC to call Hamas terrorists, the commenter I originally replied to said “you should also call Israel terrorists”, I’m saying that if you dilute the meaning of “terrorist” sufficiently to apply to Israel it becomes meaningless, and there are more astute arguments to be made.

Here we are, n comments later, discussing how wrong I was not to express my hyperbolic disapproval for Israel’s behavior.

barsoap,

Ben Gvir has been convicted eight times of incitement and terrorism charges. He also got exempted from the draft by the IDF for being too much of a right-wing radical.

Now, in his role as minister for national security, he’s overseeing settler violence in the west bank, pretty much doing a Maurice Papon. Yes, the man is a terrorist.

Netanyahu though he’s right-wing but not to that degree, he’s simply corrupt and wants to keep in office to keep out of prison. If that had been more possible with a centre-left coalition than the current far-right one he would’ve moved left.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will

I’d even go so far as to dispute this much. The Alaqsa Flood targeted armed border guards and other military personal. Rockets were defensive measures focused on Israeli snipers and drones patrolling the Gaza interior. The last two months of fighting have been entirely in Gaza, with Hamas rebels resisting the occupation and demolition of homes, schools, and hospitals.

Hamas rank slightly above the Vietcong on the terrorist spectrum.

cupcakezealot,
@cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

if you describe hamas as a terrorist organisation (they are) then you also have to point out israel’s role in creating and funding them.

MrEff,

One man’s terrorist group is another man’s freedom fighter. This is why many new organizations that are big on neutrality normally shy away from calling anyone terrorist groups. You could just as easily frame Israel as a terrorist group with the same justifications listed above.

PopcornTin,

It’s terrorists/freedom fighters all the way down.

Atin,

Hamas are every bit as much a terrorist organisation as Isis, the IRA, FARC, Red Army faction, Al Qaeda or UDF have been.

Linkerbaan,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Hamas is comparable to the IRA but not the rest.

The big difference is that organisations like ISIS try to take over other countries whereas Hamas is resisting colonists of their own country.

homura1650, (edited )

None of which are called terrorists by the BBC.

The BBC has a long standing policy against calling people/organizations terrorists.

Their position in this case says nothing about how they view Hamas. The position of those complaining about it says a lot about how they view the role news organizations.

Atin,

Meh, if you commit acts of terrorism, you are a terrorist. We have nouns for a reason.

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy,

“Terrorist” always seems to rely more on your political affiliation than it does your actions. I have always hated the word.

Its only purpose is to make people angry

TonyTonyChopper,
@TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz avatar

Was George Washington a terrorist?

wildcardology,

If he terrorized then yes.

TonyTonyChopper,
@TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz avatar

What do you mean if. We’ve had 200 years to mull it over.

wildcardology,

I don’t know anything about George Washington.

Saprophyte,
@Saprophyte@lemmy.world avatar

Yes.

wusa9.com/…/65-80249298-e0cb-4c31-b8b4-7f18105607…

Our experts confirm Washington secretly rotated his slaves out of the state, sometimes just sending them over the river to New Jersey, so they couldn’t claim their freedom.

“He actually instructs his secretary to do it in a way that will deceive them, meaning the slaves and the public,” MacLeod said. “So, he doesn’t want his actions to become common knowledge because he knows that there are so many abolitionists in the city that it could become a PR disaster for him.”

In 1793, Washington signs the Fugitive Slave Act into law, which helps slaveholders recapture enslaved people who have escaped.

TonyTonyChopper,
@TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz avatar

based

m0darn,

I was about to say that slave ‘ownership’ doesn’t make him a terrorist, but yeah it does because i don’t think it’s possible to enslave a person without terrorizing them.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar
  • Hamas: A population largely under the age of 18 who have been ruthlessly bombed, sniped, and starved for months while they are bottled up at the southern border in a concentration camp

Terrorists

  • The IDF: Leveraging sophisticated AI tools to assassinate entire families, demolishing whole city blocks in a fit of religious zeal, systematically kidnapping and torturing dissidents and journalists, infiltrating foreign governments to assassinate democratically elected leaders, and spreading a toxic ideology of hatred and bigotry in hopes of terrorizing their regional rivals into compliance with their demands.

Not Terrorists

rapechildren,

www.vidlii.com/watch?v=-HkErc-xfRK

killjuden,

www.vidlii.com/watch?v=A500uuWTk1S

AI_toothbrush,

Hamas is a terrorist organization. So is the IDF. Protect the people, not the barbarian leaders they admittedly did choose. I choose to defend the people because no sane minded person would elect a leader that uses their own citizens as bait and hostages and i believe most people can be at least called sane minded.

zerog_bandit,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    echodot,

    Glad to see he’s still not letting reality infringe on his fantasies. Who wants a competent foreign minister anyway?

    blazera,
    @blazera@lemmy.world avatar

    Palestinian military defending their country

    dsemy,

    By shooting rockets at random and kidnapping civilians

    blazera,
    @blazera@lemmy.world avatar

    are you talking about Hamas or IDF?

    Tobberone,

    Totally unlike the other fielded armies globally at the moment.

    /S

    echodot,

    Oh well as long as you’re not the only one doing it then it’s fine.

    IchNichtenLichten,
    @IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world avatar

    Sorry Dave, I trust John Simpson. You’re just a pink-faced ham botherer.

    www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67083432

    Murvel,

    Hamas is a terrorist organization

    Dkarma,

    You spelled Israel wrong.

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Both can be true. But that doesn’t mean the BBC should give up its neutral stance.

    Murvel,

    If Great Britain labels Hamas a terrorist organization, why shouldn’t the BBC then to the same?

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Because the BBC is not the PR arm of the British government. It is supposed to be an independent and impartial entity.

    Murvel,

    It’s the official stance of the country from their own government, by extension the british people. Are you saying that’s not what the BBC represents?

    Noel_Skum,

    No. They’re saying the BBC is not the government’s mouthpiece. It is an impartial public broadcaster. The same BBC that has reported on both IRA bombings and Sinn Féin elections. If you understand that last sentence you may realise why the BBC speaks as it does.

    Murvel,

    BBC is regulated by the government in the form of Ofcom according to:

    www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation

    Noel_Skum,

    Ofcom is a “government approved regulator” as opposed to the “government regulating approval.“ There is a difference. It’s a .org not .gov domain.

    Murvel,

    They regulate the BBC that’s all you need to focus on.

    Noel_Skum,

    Ofcom regulates EVERY television broadcaster, every radio broadcaster, all the phone providers, all the broadband providers, the postal providers and the wireless providers in the UK. That’s a lot more companies than just the BBC. That is what I’ll be focusing on; rather than your suggestion. Thanks all the same.

    Murvel,

    Yeah, so the BBC is government regulated…

    Noel_Skum,

    Wow. Believe whatever you want - don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions. You are so colossally misunderstanding what the phrase “government approved regulator” means. Thanks for the laugh.

    Murvel,

    They’re regulated, you for some reason don’t belevie they are, that’s it, not sure what else to add.

    Noel_Skum,

    I’m not questioning that they’re regulated and never have - you absolute ham sandwich. I’m correcting you in your mistaken belief that the regulator is the government. Ofcom is not the government - regardless of what you want to believe. It doesn’t matter how loud you shout - you’re wrong when you say the BBC is regulated by the government. It is regulated by Ofcom. Please do some research.

    Murvel,

    Ofcon, British government agency

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom?wprov=sfla1

    First fucking words of the article.

    Lmao ffs dude. The only reason I keep going is to see where this will take us. You cannot have this fragile an ego…

    Noel_Skum,

    The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting… looks like it says government-approved to me. That’s different to being a part of the government.

    Noel_Skum,

    You definitely need to work on your reading comprehension… but try the bit further down your quoted article where it says that Ofcom is a “statutory corporation”. And then read the article on that phrase. Still convinced Transport For London is a government agency? Hell, with your (incorrect) argument that would make the actual BBC a government agency as it itself is a statutory corporation. So why would the government need Ofcom? Hmmmm

    Murvel,

    It says it a government agency on the wikipedia page, in the summary no less! Are you really this petty, my god dude!

    Noel_Skum,

    To quote your own source again: “…government-approved regulatory and competition authority…” If you think that is synonymous with being a part of the UK government then that is on you and no amount of help will change that. On a side note - are you interested in replacing Ofcom with an industry approved regulator instead?

    Murvel,

    Your ego really don’t allow you to be wrong once?

    Noel_Skum,

    The irony of that comment has really tickled me. Thanks internet stranger. Best of luck to you for the future. Good bye. 👋

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    No. The BBC does not represent the official stance of the country and never has. It is an independent journalistic body.

    Murvel,

    Of course they do. The aren’t allowed to print anything they want. Public service is governed by state. Well at least in Sweden but the principle is the same.

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    They are, in fact, allowed to print anything they want. They are not beholden to the government. That’s a simple fact.

    Murvel,

    No dude, they are regulated by the Ofcon, a government approved state department and their prints are regulated by Ofcon statures:

    www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation

    And if you know your history, you also know that the BBC was heavily censored during the war. And that’s about it.

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I’m not sure how you think that changes anything that I said and makes them beholden to the government, but okay.

    I’d think the fact that they aren’t doing what David Cameron wants them to do proves you wrong, but you seem to think your “research” trumps reality, so…

    Murvel,

    Well, the BBC is clearly regulated by the government, while you claim that is not the case due to ‘simple facts’…

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    The simple fact being that David Cameron told them to call Hamas terrorists and they said no. Read the article. If they are beholden to the government, how is that possible?

    Murvel,

    They are not beholden to the government. That’s a simple fact.

    Hm, well see, that’s not what you referred the ‘simple fact’ to be is it?

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Again- if that is not a fact, why are they allowed to go against what David Cameron is telling them to do?

    Murvel,

    Because David Cameron cannot personally dictate the state…

    One thing I’ve learnt in life is the value of accepting when I’m in the wrong.

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    So… you’re saying that the BBC must be beholden to the state in terms of messaging, but a senior cabinet member does not? That’s really your argument?

    Murvel,

    No for gods sake, I never said that. Is it truly so horrific to simply admit to be in the fault?

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Yes, I get very much that you want me to say that I’m wrong in order to validate your ego, but I’m not especially interested in continuing this conversation while you continually insist I say so.

    And if I moderated my own conversations, which I do not, you would be taking a break for harassing someone.

    funkless_eck,

    brit living in America. It is astonishing the difference between news feeds

    the BBC waivers and has its faults and biases, but even biases I loosely agree with are so partisan in the US it makes me feel a bit unwell.

    SulaymanF,

    Neutral would be calling Likud a terrorist organization as well.

    Murvel,

    Isreal isn’t labeled a terrorist organization by any institutional body that I know of.

    atoro,

    Which is ironic considering at this point Israel has most likely killed more innocent civilians than Hamas ever did

    Murvel,

    So has the US, Russia, China etc. by that metric. The killing of civilians is not what determines a terrorist organization.

    Psychodelic,

    Oh well that’s convenient

    Murvel,

    Well you brought it up, but it contradicts your point.

    Psychodelic,

    Did I?

    Murvel,

    Uh, yes, following the comment above.

    ghostdoggtv,

    The zionist paramilitaries that were consolidated (read: Likud) into the first iteration of the IDF were proud, avowed terrorists because they knew they couldn’t win a territorial conflict using conventional methods while outnumbered on hostile turf. Labeled, ha.

    mindlight,

    Wikipedia first lines summarizes the 7th of October quite well:

    Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.

    Hamas still haven’t released the civilian hostages. Hamas hides among civilians. The list goes on and on.

    The only sad part is that the Palestinian people once voted for a terrorist organisation to represent them.

    People can call Hamas for “Freedom Fighters” all they want but it doesn’t erase the fact:

    Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

    Hawk,

    And there’s the problem. Why should Hamas be called a terrorist and not the Israel government?

    This is why news organisations avoid the word. It clearly picks a side.

    mindlight,

    Why Hamas should be called a terrorist organisation?

    Because they have been committing acts of terrorism.

    Whether other organisations has committed or has not commited terrorist acts is irrelevant in this context and does in no way cancel out the horrible things Hamas has been doing.

    JustEnoughDucks, (edited )
    @JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl avatar

    Yeah but in that case:

    US government and Canadian are terrorists (look at their list of war crimes against civilians, genocide of native Americans, kidnapping and “re-educating” native children for ethnic cleansing). The US independence war literally got kicked off by torturing civilian tax collectors by ripping their skin off after dragging them through the streets

    Israel is a terrorist state (genocide against a specific ethnic group definitely fits this definition even if they just did it for expansionism, that is a political goal and there are 36000 that Israel has killed directly on the low end, including over 224 civilian humanitarian aid workers and 179 civilian unwra workers)

    Hamas is a terrorist organization

    Dole is a terrorist organization (banana republics, Hawaii)

    Many police organizations nowadays are terrorists (constant violence against innocent civilians), especially in the US

    Belgium is a terrorist state (Congo anyone?)

    France is a terrorist state (they have a special police battalion hand picked for violence against civilians lol)

    Russian army is a terrorist org (talk about violence against civilians, they have wiped out so many villages and just killed and dumped the population)

    Hell, Britain is a terrorist org (Kenya atrocities like the chuka massacre, the Irish???, Iraq & Afganistan?? BBC themselves reported how the British government was covering up their forces killing and torture of civilians and children in the middle east)

    The point is that a news org can’t (or shouldn’t) just cherry pick who they want to label terrorists because that, no matter which way you slice it, will be political bias. Their own government has committed many, MANY acts of terror very recently.

    mindlight,

    No. Not “in that case”.

    Fact: Hamas commits and have committed acts of terrorism and therefore Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It doesn’t matter what other countries have committed terrorist acts now or 100 years ago. There is no connection or dependencies.

    Hamas is a terrorist organisation because of them committing acts of terrorism. End of story.

    When BBC is asked to call Belgium a terrorist start you’re free to discuss that there. In that thread I will happily claim that Hamas is innocent to whatever Leo did in Africa.

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    Can we label him as a pig-fucking PM? Oh wait, we already do.

    iAmTheTot,
    iAmTheTot avatar

    To be clear, there's no evidence he did.

    FlyingSquid,
    @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

    I honestly could not care less whether or not it’s true. He’s told so many lies that if a lie is told about him that makes it sound like he stuck his dick in a pig, good. He deserves it.

    iAmTheTot,
    iAmTheTot avatar

    Personally, I don't think that two wrongs cancel out, and I'm not particularly keen on hypocrisy. Just wanted to point out for people who might not know that story has no evidence.

    bassomitron,

    Isn’t that a Black Mirror episode?

    Drusas,

    The very first, if I recall.

    psvrh,
    @psvrh@lemmy.ca avatar

    Continuing the tradition of British conservative prime ministers labelling things “terrorism” when the poor get uppity.

    How’s Thatcher looking these days for insisting that Mandela was a terrorist?

    bhmnscmm,
    @bhmnscmm@lemmy.world avatar

    If Hamas isn’t a terrorist organization then what would you call them?

    Lumisal,

    Paramilitary?

    Seriously I’m old enough to remember when words other than “terrorist” were used.

    Hamas doesn’t just want to cause terror, and isn’t a random group. It’s an organized group with an objective goal to destroy the nation of Israel that’s part of a governing body.

    Nowadays anyone that’s “the bad guy” is just called “terrorist”. That’s not by accident either - makes it hard to talk nuance when you make things black and white, and gives oligarchs and autocrats a nice loaded word to use against “revolutionaries”.

    davepleasebehave,

    What’s your definition of terror tactics?

    bhmnscmm,
    @bhmnscmm@lemmy.world avatar

    My definition of terrorist tactics is irrelevant to how the OP would classify Hamas.

    Regardless, here’s how terrorism is defined on Wikipedia: it seems pretty reasonable to me.

    Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants

    davepleasebehave,

    So would you agree that Israel as an ethno colonialist state uses these tactics?

    bhmnscmm,
    @bhmnscmm@lemmy.world avatar

    The fact that you’re trying move this conversation towards the actions of Israel while avoiding the actions of Hamas leads me to believe you’re not interested in having a genuine discussion. I think you’re trying to play gotcha.

    Have Israel and Hamas used terrorist tactics? I think so. Do both sides not care about the well-being of civilians? I think so. Are both sides of this conflict bad? I think so.

    SulaymanF,

    Yes both sides commit terrorism. And one side gets billions of dollars in government aid and weapons despite murderifn journalists and openly causing famine.

    I’m so tired of this political game. Abbas condemned terrorism and Israel refused to work with him for decades because the existence of terrorism gave them license to steal more land. He went to the UN to ask for statehood and Israeli leaders threatened to press charges of war crimes against him. His response was “we’ll share a cell at The Hague.”

    davepleasebehave,

    so is there any real reason to worry about wether Hamas is a terror organisation?

    Was the ANC a terror organisation?

    Was the IRA a terror organisation?

    Was the American revolution a terror organisation?

    perhaps the label has no meaning.

    Let’s condemn killings if civilians. let’s also be realistic about the situation. the people of Gaza have no choice about who is occupying them.

    psvrh,
    @psvrh@lemmy.ca avatar

    I’ll put this back to you this way: is Likud also a terrorist organization? Is the IDF? Because they do a lot of the same stuff.

    There are definitely terrorists associated with Hamas, and Hamas definitely carries water for them, but they’re also the duly elected government in Gaza and if I were Israel I’d be asking why Gazans feel like they were so wronged that the only option seems to be a political movement that’s sympathetic to terrorist tactics.

    Saying “they’re terrorists” without acknowledging how we got here is a lot like calling the ANC in South Africa “terrorist” in the 1980s. It’s stupidly reductionist and ignores complexity for the sake of jingoism.

    It’s also why Cameron is a disingenuous jackass.

    bhmnscmm,
    @bhmnscmm@lemmy.world avatar

    I agree with everything you’ve said. Hamas can be a terrorist organization, and still be the elected government. Both can be true, and acknowledging the how and why of that being the case is necessary reach a resolution to the conflict.

    Psychodelic,

    Maybe, but a better question might be was George Washington a terrorist? What about Nat Turner?

    Maybe, but I’m kinda on their sides

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • world@lemmy.world
  • slotface
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • everett
  • tacticalgear
  • rosin
  • Durango
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • magazineikmin
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • khanakhh
  • ethstaker
  • JUstTest
  • ngwrru68w68
  • cisconetworking
  • modclub
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • GTA5RPClips
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •