...in that colonizers use the term to justify their continued brutalization of people fighting back against oppression. It was probably on 
where I first heard the argument that it's a fairly useless term mainly used to describe any militant enemies of the west, but it occurs to me now and seems so obvious that the term "terrorist" is just a direct replacement for "savage".
It's a very racialized term masquerading as a neutral one, with a "definition" that is secondary to its actual meaning, which is to liken to a character of the Terrorist who is like a Halloween monster. It dehumanizes its target into a completely irrational monster, who you can then say did any nonsensical evil thing you can come up with and people will believe you.
you ever notice that they never call a white male mass shooter a terrorist? instead he is usually a "gunman" or a "shooter"
I've known new athiests that call Muslims in general uncivilised and of a lesser culture
at some point mark my words someone is going to start up colonial mission trips for new athiesm
Ask him:
"Oh really? Does that include Andrew Tate? Perhaps also a sizable portion of US republicans
Watch him short-circuit.
requisite
cliphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiqnN6EU3Q0
terrorism is acceptable when all options for peaceful settlement have been foreclosed
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Any time someone says "terrorists" I just stop listening to them. It's an incredible cudgel for them to wield though. Look how easy it is for even a dope like Santos to just keep ringing that bell to completely shut down discussion.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Similarly, the west uses "democratic" like they used to use "civilized", although they never really stopped doing that one either
