On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:35 AM, S. Dale Morrey <[email protected]> wrote: > state sponsor of terrorism in the same vein as Cuba, North Korea & Iran, > which are all called as such by our own government.
Called as such - but is that a fair appraisal? I really don't think it is. The word "terrorist" gets slapped on anything we don't like these days. Just because a politician slaps that label on a country they don't like doesn't make it true or correct. An important point that I don't think I made before is that attacks against another nation's military cannot be acts of terrorism. The attack on the USS Cole, for example, was not an act of terrorism - it was an act of war. This goes back to the "it's only terrorism if you don't know how to not die" bit. If a person can stay safe from a threat by not joining the military, then the threat in question can't be terrorism. Incidentally, part of the reason soldiers wear uniforms is to designate themselves as valid targets during war. Think of it like this: when I wear my US Army uniform, I am designating myself as acting on behalf of the US government. My actions (when in uniform) are performed as an extension of the government. (This is why following orders, etc. is such a big deal.) If someone wants to attack the US government, a person wearing a US Army (or Marines or Navy or Air Force or Coast Guard) uniform is a valid target, because when in uniform they are essentially the state incarnate. See also: Jus in Bello https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war This also connects to ideas about surrender. If a person in uniform is a valid war target, well... you can always take your uniform off. You always know, as a soldier, what to do if you decide you don't want to be a target any more. You always know what to do if you want to be safe: just take off the uniform. Then there's Superman. Every other superhero has a costume that they put on when they become their alter ego. Superman, on the other hand, is the opposite: he is *always* wearing that blue shirt under his work clothes; the disguise he wears is his alter ego. There's something about the act of literally putting on the clothing / role that seems to have deep human symbolism. Not really related (at least not directly) to the terrorism thing but I still find it interesting. Oh, right, practical upshot: Cuba isn't a terrorist state. North Korea might be (???) since they have a habit of threatening civilians if they don't get their way. Iran... ehh... I'd have to review the facts there. I'd say "no" but that's just off the top of my head. The US.... I didn't read all the links presented (okay, I didn't read any of them - sorry, I'm busy) but I kind of doubt it. There may have been a handful of incidences that would qualify but by and large I'd still say no. Also Noam Chomsky is an insane genius, and also wrong. -Dan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
