|
Mojo I am going to have to disagree with you on this point. I stand by my belief that for the time the gurilla fighters (anyone remember what they were called?) that fought against the redcoats could easily have been considered terrorists by the british crown. They did not wear uniforms and they did not fight in a way that was considered fair for the time. While the British troops would line up our troops would hide and ambush. It was a smart move by our troops because the methods of warfair back then were silly. But they were considered the proper methods of war. If the criteria for being called a terrorist is the targeting of civilians then where does that leave the US government with Hiroshima and Nagisaki? It is my belief that the word terrorist has been so loosely used by this Administration that we now have a gray area on what is a terrorist. Are the 9/11 hijackers terrorists? I most certianly would say so. Is the Iraqi doing what ever he can to stop the US a terrorist? I'm not so sure, even if he doesn't wear a uniform, even if he uses roadside bombs. The word terrorist has lost it's meaning since 9/11 and has now been redifined to mean anyone that fights against the US unfortunatly the fear and passion that the word draws out in people has remained the same. Now this word is being used to manipulate people into supporting Bushes agenda because as long as we are fighting "terrorists" then anyone who stands against this action is an unpatriotic american hating liberal who wants our troops to die. So I have a problem with people using this word now days. There should be a law like Godwin's Law but dealing with the word terrorist instead afterall it is being used to generate the same fear and passion that the word Nazi used to.
|