This particular sentence is not entirely correct, as it implies that freedom fighters can't use terror tactics and thus be terrorists.
Say, if some Armenian force (there are none that'd have the balls) would bomb the Mingechaur dam, the pipes and infrastructure going through Tovuz, other smaller hydroelectric objects etc in Azerbaijan, - these would be actions aimed at fighting for freedom, but very important part of their effect would be terror.
In some way any violent activity aimed at denying someone their feeling of safety is terrorism. Like, say, allied bombing campaign of Germany (its goals were even formulated like that).
I agree that Hamas are not freedom fighters, their ideology is pretty Nazi.
There is again difference between blowing up a strategic dam and attacking a concert full of civilians.
First can have some actual strategic importance, cutting out energy, interrupting travel, et cetera.
It causes terror and civilian causalities, but that is again, a byproduct. If the latter is greater than the former it doesn't add to the revolutionary goal, I would argue it damages it and causes more harm than good for the group.
Second is pure terror, it serves no purpose for the group, vilianizes them to the public and makes the government they are fighting against stronger.
Any action that doesn't help with a revolutionary goal or even detracts from it, is useless.
Any action with no strategic importance and only creating terror is not only evil, but harms the group more then it helps.
There is a massive difference between terrorism and freedom fighting.
I am not saying freedom fighting groups don't do terrorism, we dont live in a perfect world.
What I am saying that terrorism has no benefits and only harms not only the innocent but also the group commiting it.
OK, with this I agree.
Putting aside whether terror is strategic, taking hostages is a strategy.
Killing houndreds of innocent unarmed civilians isn't
Are you saying if one element of their response isn't strategic then it doesn't matter about the rest?
Nope, as I stated otherwise.
I am saying that non strategic acts harm the cause more than strategic help it.
Hamas does much more non strategic acts than strategic acts, to such an extent that calling them a freedom fighting group is objectively false.
This particular sentence is not entirely correct, as it implies that freedom fighters can't use terror tactics and thus be terrorists.
Say, if some Armenian force (there are none that'd have the balls) would bomb the Mingechaur dam, the pipes and infrastructure going through Tovuz, other smaller hydroelectric objects etc in Azerbaijan, - these would be actions aimed at fighting for freedom, but very important part of their effect would be terror.
In some way any violent activity aimed at denying someone their feeling of safety is terrorism. Like, say, allied bombing campaign of Germany (its goals were even formulated like that).
I agree that Hamas are not freedom fighters, their ideology is pretty Nazi.
There is again difference between blowing up a strategic dam and attacking a concert full of civilians.
First can have some actual strategic importance, cutting out energy, interrupting travel, et cetera.
It causes terror and civilian causalities, but that is again, a byproduct. If the latter is greater than the former it doesn't add to the revolutionary goal, I would argue it damages it and causes more harm than good for the group.
Second is pure terror, it serves no purpose for the group, vilianizes them to the public and makes the government they are fighting against stronger.
Any action that doesn't help with a revolutionary goal or even detracts from it, is useless.
Any action with no strategic importance and only creating terror is not only evil, but harms the group more then it helps.
There is a massive difference between terrorism and freedom fighting.
I am not saying freedom fighting groups don't do terrorism, we dont live in a perfect world. What I am saying that terrorism has no benefits and only harms not only the innocent but also the group commiting it.
OK, with this I agree.
Putting aside whether terror is strategic, taking hostages is a strategy.
Killing houndreds of innocent unarmed civilians isn't
Are you saying if one element of their response isn't strategic then it doesn't matter about the rest?
Nope, as I stated otherwise.
I am saying that non strategic acts harm the cause more than strategic help it.
Hamas does much more non strategic acts than strategic acts, to such an extent that calling them a freedom fighting group is objectively false.
Thanks for clarifying.