posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by Franco8274
There is no uniformity among American government agencies on the definition of terrorist. We could say "a group or someone who seeks to form or
influence political policy thru the use of violence defines terrorism," but Taliban & HIG perform these very acts and are simply referred to as ACM
(i.e. Anti-Coalition Militia: emphasis, militia). In other words, if we are going to be consistent then we must refer to these groups as terrorists
as well, but that simply doesn't occur at the level of planning and operations (or even in public media for that matter).
MSM and some American political mouthpieces need their bad guys to conform to specific language. In that sense there is uniformity. But that is a
meme and nothing more--it creates a condition in others' minds that it's okay--in this case--to assassinate an American because he was a terrorist
and not something else. By that logic the FBI should have assassinated, say, Ted Kacynski rather than bring him to trial. But even if we are going
to be consistent with our application of the word terrorist, there is nothing in common law or otherwise that allows for the assassination of an
an Executive Order. If you happen to be okay with that then I would suggest you are making a grave error in judgment.