King David Hotel Bombing - Terrorist Attack or Not?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nope it wasn't, and even if it was it was justified.

Lol.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, killing 90 civilians to cover up evidence of your past crimes is totally justified. Because Hitler.

[Mr. Reactionary]

... and also this didn't help at all either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Agatha

hmmm ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So some terrorists kidnapped British soldiers, British soldiers responded by arresting some of the terrorists and confiscating documents which clearly incriminated several of the terrorists, therefore the terrorists were completely justified in blowing up an occupied building in response?

I mean, the US government burned a church filled with women and children to the ground over a tax dispute in 1993 and in response a man who was justifiably angry about this miscarriage of justice blew up a daycare filled with children in revenge. Clearly that was not justifiable. Can't you differentiate between justifiable anger and unjustifiable actions?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Of course it was. And that was fine.

Call me crazy, but I don't think terrorism is ever acceptable...

South Africa?

Crabcake, I didn't know you were a supporter of the white nationalist AWB.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lol, definitely the anti-apartheid terrorism for me pls Seriously though, armed resistance is entirely acceptable when forces comspire to attack and cripple non-violent resistance (like the apartheid government did). That's why I would be supportive of civilians engaging in "terrorism" against PRC, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, Assad, DPRK, Sisi, Omar al-Bashir, and all other such tyrants and despots. Of course, civilian deaths are not a good thing, but sometimes you unfortunately have to wage war against your government (and not to be overly "greater good" but it's not like the governments you're facing against will have any qualms for murdering civilians).

Well said.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Wow. That escalated quickly.