• SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      13 days ago

      Some of the people in that movement thought so. From things they read on the internet, they were led to believe that covid was part of a plan to kill millions of people.

      Don’t believe everything you read on the internet, kids. It may lead you to get so emotional over genocide claims that you end up being associated with some actual genocidal groups.

    • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      No, but I’m also not sure where you are going with that question. I suppose hezbollah flags directly have something to do with the Palestine protests, whereas nazi flags didn’t really have anything to do with the convoy, so maybe it’s more understandable to have hezbollah/hamas flags there. But they are still terrorists, right? Or are we OK with them now? I’m just not sure what you mean.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        See, the difference is that the people at the convoy were given a chance to disavow the Nazis as the media talks to the organizers. The people at these protests are called Hamas sympathizers and the organizers are not even contacted by the media.

        But the organizers at these anti-genocide protests seem never to be interviewed by the media. Do you think it’s because they’re hiding?

        • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Yeah maybe they were contacted, I don’t recall. And yes the organizers should be available for interviews, and should also be given a chance to clarify what they stand for, what their message is and who the big backers are. That way you can get an idea of what they ACTUALLY stand for and not just what the leader says.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        I don’t agree with them but this:

        But they are still terrorists, right?

        That’s a loaded question.

        Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

        The first part that needs to be dealt with is “unlawful.” Who’s laws? The issue is states get to arbitrarily define terrorism. If a state does terrorism, they get to say it’s something else.

        Second: “violence and intimidation… in the pursuit of political aims.” OK, so all militaries do this part. That’s the point of a military. If this part is wrong then all states are wrong.

        OK, so essentially the issue is defining “terrorism” as a bad thing. It isn’t necessarily. It’s using the means of the state against a state. That is all. It can be bad, but so can the actions of a state. It can also be good. If only states are allowed to use violence then they will use violence to suppress voices they disagree with, and there’s nothing that can be done about it.

        We’ve got to stop using the term terrorism. It’s a term of the media. It isn’t useful in a real discussion. It is a term used to drive hatred and fear even if the ones using it are the ones on the receiving end of most of the violence. The media will never use the word to refer to state actions that they agree with. Stop using their language.