> > We've declared (well at least I have, and since I saw no disagreement I > > think we all concur) that the US government is a state sponsor of terrorism > > I guess the point of my "defining terrorism" thread was missed. The > US government is not a state sponsor of terrorism. It is certainly > not a shining example of morality, but it's not sponsoring terrorism > either. Anyone who thinks it is has an overly broad definition of > terror, or (worse) has been listening to Chomsky. > > -Dan
How do drones affect your opinion on if the state sponsors terrorism. A while ago I watched a segment where the reporter said that the victims knew the drones were flying over several times a day. Generally they do nothing but occasionally there is sufficient evidence to blow up a building in an attempt to kill some high ranking person. Now I don't know anything about the drones. What I do know is for a long time the government said they weren't killing civilians. Yet it seems every time they announced killing someone the "bad guys" spoke of the civilian casualties. Just recently Obama said something to the effect that they were going to be more careful and only use the drones when the target was an imminent threat. From my perspective that is an admission that the drones were being over used. That they were killing civilians and lying to the American public about it. That sounds to me like terrorism. Now for a minute imagine if we had drones flying overhead and occasionally the done would destroy a cafe or some other building. How many people in this country would advocate going to war? James /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
