yeah, i entirely agree!

it’s stupid and ridiculous!

i mean…they DID trespass onto a military airport and messed with military aircraft.

that was what they did, that got them the designation “terrorist organization”.

the planes were about to fly weapons down to israel, afaik, so i think they were doing something worthwhile, but, you know…bad idea regardless.

I don’t agree that this makes them terrorists, i think that’s some insane hyperbole on the governments side…but it does fit a very draconian definition of “terrorism”: simply defined a “using force to achieve a political goal”

the entire thing is stupid. this is the stupidest timeline, after all…

no one said it did:

it can still be the worst crime of this century, because last century had even worse crimes at the same time as this one.

just because the words “what about…” are used, doesn’t make an argument a whataboutism.

a whataboutism deflects from an argument or aims to derail an argument.

what the previous user did was ask for further argumentation about a directly related topic; it’s a continuation, not a deflection.

so it’s not fallacious, buta legitimate question:

you’ve banned some propaganda channels (argument is closed at this point), will you now also ban other, similar channels (new, related argument)?

since the previous argument has concluded, because yt has already enforced their views, wether right or wrong, the follow-up question is perfectly legitimate.