Well let’s see, the FBI calls international terrorism “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).” And I’d argue the pagers were state-sponsored, violent, and to my knowledge criminal since killing civilians is typically viewed as criminal.
But I really like how Wikipedia words it:
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 (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel). There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it. Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.
Do I really need to spell out for you how using an IED to kill whoever happens to be near it when the detonator is pressed fits this definition? If so I’d like to see why you think Oct 7th was a terrorist attack.
Because bystanders were not deliberately targeted by the pager attack. They were collateral. If I launch 20 rockets at a military base and a couple of them go astray and several civilians are killed, that is not a terrorist attack, even if I was aware of the possibility of that happening. Should I have been more careful? Maybe, but that is a different discussion. If I launch those rockets at a marketplace with the intention of killing/terrorizing civilians, that would be a terrorist attack. And that is the difference between the pager attack and Oct 7: intent.
Which military base did the pagers go off in? This is more like dropping bombs on a school or hospital because you think there are some military personnel inside. Oh wait, they do that too. I can’t believe Israel managed to get a bunch of idiots to defend IED’s.
One key note is that Israel is worse at protecting civilians than Hamas is. By their own numbers, the IDF kills more civilians for every enemy soldier they kill than Hamas does. Hamas is actually a far more ethical army, in terms of civilian casualty ratios, than the IDF is.
The harsh truth is that the only reason we call Hamas a “terrorist group” and the IDF “an army” is classism. The IDF kills 10 civilians to destroy one Hamas fighter with a laser-guided bomb? That’s just collateral damage. Hamas kills 10 civilians to kill one IDF soldier with a truck bomb? That’s terrorism.
The definition of terrorism should be amended:
terrorism (n): violence committed by a group representing one demographic group against a wealthier demographic group.
Which requirements are they missing, that are applicable to the pager attack?
Well let’s see, the FBI calls international terrorism “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).” And I’d argue the pagers were state-sponsored, violent, and to my knowledge criminal since killing civilians is typically viewed as criminal.
But I really like how Wikipedia words it:
Do I really need to spell out for you how using an IED to kill whoever happens to be near it when the detonator is pressed fits this definition? If so I’d like to see why you think Oct 7th was a terrorist attack.
Because bystanders were not deliberately targeted by the pager attack. They were collateral. If I launch 20 rockets at a military base and a couple of them go astray and several civilians are killed, that is not a terrorist attack, even if I was aware of the possibility of that happening. Should I have been more careful? Maybe, but that is a different discussion. If I launch those rockets at a marketplace with the intention of killing/terrorizing civilians, that would be a terrorist attack. And that is the difference between the pager attack and Oct 7: intent.
Which military base did the pagers go off in? This is more like dropping bombs on a school or hospital because you think there are some military personnel inside. Oh wait, they do that too. I can’t believe Israel managed to get a bunch of idiots to defend IED’s.
One key note is that Israel is worse at protecting civilians than Hamas is. By their own numbers, the IDF kills more civilians for every enemy soldier they kill than Hamas does. Hamas is actually a far more ethical army, in terms of civilian casualty ratios, than the IDF is.
The harsh truth is that the only reason we call Hamas a “terrorist group” and the IDF “an army” is classism. The IDF kills 10 civilians to destroy one Hamas fighter with a laser-guided bomb? That’s just collateral damage. Hamas kills 10 civilians to kill one IDF soldier with a truck bomb? That’s terrorism.
The definition of terrorism should be amended:
terrorism (n): violence committed by a group representing one demographic group against a wealthier demographic group.
Removed by mod