Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by bilbo0s | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

bilbo0s·

"...Whether or not those attacks are done by terrorists, or oppressed minorities, I have no comments...."

???

If "...oppressed minorities..." commit acts wherein "...hundreds of innocent people were killed..."

aren't they "terrorists"?

Or am I thinking about this whole thing wrong?

View on HN

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I think the parent post simply meant that they were not passing judgment on the justification of the violence.

If those attackers attacked police or gov't, they may call themselves a freedom figher. But If a guy randomly kills innocent people to show their agendas, he is definitely a terrorist, which was what happened in Xinjiang and other cities in China by some terrorist groups. Unfortunately, there was some western press quoted terrorist when they were covering those attacks.

You are entering a very dangerous territory. The terrorists in US and west can genuinely believe they are oppressed as well. To use violence to advance their own agenda on unrelated people is nevertheless evil.

A more neutral definition of terrorism is that it is organized violence for a political end that is directed largely at the population in order to make them feel fear. This is in contrast to usual military action, which is directed mainly at the military on the other side.

Under this definition, were Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings acts of war or terrorism? I am sure many military actions conducted today, even those by US and allies would fall under your definition of terrorism.

Pretty sure OP was just adding that in so that they'd avoid needless discussion regarding emotionally-charged labels like 'terrorist'. The term almost certainly applies, but lets talk about the acts and the environment itself, rather than perpetrators of horrific acts and their presumable-but-technically-unknown motivations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com