posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:12 AM
Originally posted by xmotex
If they're pro-US they're "freedom fighters", if they're anti-US they're "terrorists."
In the eyes of the Right, it's as simple as that.
These people are stuck in the stone age, evolutionary throwbacks for whom tribal loyalties (morphed into nationalism over the millenia) outweigh
They'll mourn the dead of 9-11 with crocodile tears and phony outrage, but if it had happened in Tehran or Shanghai or somewhere else people they
don't like live, they'd be the first to celebrate.
911 at least the NYC part of it was a civilian target hence why it is almost universally called terrorism, the pentagon attack was an act of war
because it was a military/govt target.
Even American "terrorist" have made that distinction, Timothy McVeigh targeted a government agent he killed a lot of kids and stuff but it was
collateral damage of a Government/Military target. I find more merit (still guilty of mass murder BEFORE ANYBODY GETS ALL IN A BUNCH) than say a
nightclub full of 20 year olds or a NON GOVERNMENT financial center and yes even though I have major issues with mass religion I do think it would be
an outright terrorist act to attack one. Maybe attacking a hospital as dismantleling infrastructure in extremely dirty and no holds bar war (carpet
bombings/ tactical WMD, burning bridges poisoning water). Even the Puerto Rican "terrorist" of the 70s target mostly cops/government buildings (not
100% sure, feel free to correct me).
besides most of the geneva conventions tend to benifit the more industrailize and richer nations, there is no real non-self defeating ways to fight
back against a better equip nation without so called terrorist tactics. They may make war a more civilized thing but come on if we were really
civilized in the first place we would be able to avoid most major direct arm conflicts except for your occation wetworks, SF ops and precision
bombings here and there if anything.