Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Well, it all depends on how you frame the conflict. History is littered with instances of armies attacking the people they're supposed to protect. Anyone inciting armed overthrow of the government could easily be shellacked into terrorist status. The government would just have to come up with a sufficient pr campaign to dehumanize the insurgents.
|
A very legitimate point, but it's one thing to claim that a man born in Saudi Arabia, raised in a society that unfortunatally promotes hatred of all things western, who lost his aunt to an attack by US forces, who has links to the al Qaeda is a terrorist. It's another thing to claim a man born in Austin Texas, father of two, who is a manager at Orchard Supply and coaches a t-ball team is a terrorist.
Consider if someone suggested I was a terrorist. I was born in San Jose, son of a Lutheran pastor, married and one daughter, good job, lots of friends, donates to charity, feeds the homeless, TONS of friends in the military, belongs to a military family, a history of seeking peaceful solutions, a member of the peace movement, posts waaay to much on TFP: is this the profile of the standard terrorist? Doubtful. Even with my unorthodox beliefs about 9/11 and my strong liberal leanings, I'm still not going to be on a terrorist watch list. Despite all this, I
could be a terrorist. Who knows? The thing is, the hypothetical American terrorist who would wish to overthrow the government would need the military. They would need the support of the people and the military in order to bring about a change with the least bloodshed possible. What does this mean? Bombing empty government buildings. Public defacing of prominant party figures (telling the truth about the bad leaders). Blowing up banks afterhours. Blowing up symbols of tyranny. Destroying the tools of those who would destroy peace.