←back to thread

U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

(www.reuters.com)
350 points tepidandroid | 4 comments | 19 Sep 19 16:51 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
gcatalfamo ◴[20 Sep 19 05:55 UTC] No.21023650[source]▶
This is how you create terrorists. What do you think the children and friends feelings towards the US will be from now on? People get radicalized for much less than that.
replies(12): >>21023867 #>>21023882 #>>21024090 #>>21024098 #>>21024108 #>>21024127 #>>21024148 #>>21024258 #>>21024722 #>>21025214 #>>21025358 #>>21025914 #
oh_sigh ◴[20 Sep 19 07:36 UTC] No.21024098[source]▶
I hear this a lot but is there any basis for this? Were any of the 9/11 attackers widowed/orphaned by the US? Or were they just whipped up in religious fervor and an abstract idea of a cultural war with the US?

And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims than their non-directly-affected peers?

replies(4): >>21024157 #>>21024227 #>>21024428 #>>21024548 #
kristopolous ◴[20 Sep 19 07:48 UTC] No.21024157[source]▶
Well we have been bombing a Muslim majority country for 18 years. That probably counts.
replies(1): >>21024236 #
oh_sigh ◴[20 Sep 19 07:59 UTC] No.21024236[source]▶
Counts for what? My question was about the basis for terrorism, not about the facts of bombing campaigns.
replies(2): >>21024274 #>>21024339 #
1. kristopolous ◴[20 Sep 19 08:06 UTC] No.21024274[source]▶
Terrorism is a label slapped on violence that breaks some arbitrary rules someone thinks ought to be followed.

Were the founding fathers terrorists? The British sure thought so...

You can be the gatekeeper of that word all you want, just know that you're playing that role.

replies(1): >>21025221 #
2. oh_sigh ◴[20 Sep 19 10:52 UTC] No.21025221[source]▶
The British thought the founding fathers were rebels, which is not the same thing as terrorists(not that they had that word to use anyway)
replies(1): >>21026544 #
3. kristopolous ◴[20 Sep 19 13:41 UTC] No.21026544[source]▶
Nope, rebel is the positive (or at least neutral) version of terrorist, the terrorist for your side.

This exact oratory slight of hand is used constantly in media, virtue signaling through word choice.

replies(1): >>21028374 #
4. oh_sigh ◴[20 Sep 19 16:22 UTC] No.21028374{3}[source]▶
No, there is a vast difference in tactics between rebels and terrorists. Rebels may use terrorism, terrorists may be rebels, but the two are not synonyms.