I don’t find the goal of establishing and living by Islamic laws sympathetic either, but they are using legal means to achieve it, not acts of terror.
This does not seem credible. Those who genuinely desire to establish an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in a non-Islamic country likely also have some overlap with those who are fine with resorting to planning acts of terror. This is significantly different from ‘establishing and living by Islamic laws ’, and even then the overlap would likely not be zero.
I’m trying to describe things as I see them, not create propaganda.
The writing is not neutrally worded, contains highly emotional language, and clearly can affect readers into changing their views regarding a political topic, so it counts as propaganda by any dictionary definition.
If you didn’t intend to create propaganda, try looking into how the major news media from neutral countries such as India, Israel, Brazil, etc… are writing about the conflict.
>> Those who genuinely desire to establish an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in a non-Islamic country likely also have some overlap with those who are fine with resorting to planning acts of terror
A civilized country cannot dish out 15 year prison terms just based on its imagination of what is likely. To find someone guilty of terrorism, you have to prove that they were planning or doing terrorism. Which Russia didn’t. Even in the official accusations, all that the accused allegedly did was meeting up, fundraising and spreading their literature.
I say I am not writing propaganda because I am describing my honest impressions and opinions on the matter, not cherry picking facts or telling lies to manipulate you. If your definition says that any writing that changes views is propaganda, then your definition is very broad and covers any persuasive argument. When it comes to emotions, I do not believe it is necessary, or rational, or virtuous, to see injustice and pain and remain impassive and neutral. So thank you, but I’ll pass.
If your definition says that any writing that changes views is propaganda, then your definition is very broad and covers any persuasive argument.
If you got the impression that I was offering my own definition, instead of following standard definitions available in popular dictionaries, then you should reread my comment.
Online versions of the major English dictionaries exist and anyone can read them, so no one has to take my word for it.
A civilized country cannot dish out 15 year prison terms just based on its imagination of what is likely. To find someone guilty of terrorism, you have to prove that they were planning or doing terrorism. Which Russia didn’t. Even in the official accusations, all that the accused allegedly did was meeting up, fundraising and spreading their literature.
Regardless of what has been done, is likely to be done, etc., I was addressing your claim that:
I don’t find the goal of establishing and living by Islamic laws sympathetic either, but they are using legal means to achieve it, not acts of terror.
Which does not seem credible. As there are genuine reasons to believe that such groups may not use entirely legal means to advance their goals.
Whether or not this occurred in fact, or is in fact planned to occur in the future, isn’t something that can be proven either way without on-the-ground investigation, nor are they the claims that I’m addressing.
This does not seem credible. Those who genuinely desire to establish an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in a non-Islamic country likely also have some overlap with those who are fine with resorting to planning acts of terror. This is significantly different from ‘establishing and living by Islamic laws ’, and even then the overlap would likely not be zero.
The writing is not neutrally worded, contains highly emotional language, and clearly can affect readers into changing their views regarding a political topic, so it counts as propaganda by any dictionary definition.
If you didn’t intend to create propaganda, try looking into how the major news media from neutral countries such as India, Israel, Brazil, etc… are writing about the conflict.
>> Those who genuinely desire to establish an ‘Islamic Caliphate’ in a non-Islamic country likely also have some overlap with those who are fine with resorting to planning acts of terror
A civilized country cannot dish out 15 year prison terms just based on its imagination of what is likely. To find someone guilty of terrorism, you have to prove that they were planning or doing terrorism. Which Russia didn’t. Even in the official accusations, all that the accused allegedly did was meeting up, fundraising and spreading their literature.
I say I am not writing propaganda because I am describing my honest impressions and opinions on the matter, not cherry picking facts or telling lies to manipulate you. If your definition says that any writing that changes views is propaganda, then your definition is very broad and covers any persuasive argument. When it comes to emotions, I do not believe it is necessary, or rational, or virtuous, to see injustice and pain and remain impassive and neutral. So thank you, but I’ll pass.
If you got the impression that I was offering my own definition, instead of following standard definitions available in popular dictionaries, then you should reread my comment.
Online versions of the major English dictionaries exist and anyone can read them, so no one has to take my word for it.
Regardless of what has been done, is likely to be done, etc., I was addressing your claim that:
Which does not seem credible. As there are genuine reasons to believe that such groups may not use entirely legal means to advance their goals.
Whether or not this occurred in fact, or is in fact planned to occur in the future, isn’t something that can be proven either way without on-the-ground investigation, nor are they the claims that I’m addressing.