|
I know we've had very similar conversations in the past, and I think that it always boils down to how we're going to define "terrorism". The word itself has been around for well over 150 years, and it's been cast upon lots of different folks.
Really, I think that at the end of the day, it's a completely subjective word. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter or patriot. You can argue that the US was founded by a bunch of terrorists just as you could argue the same about the French (WWII Resistance) or the Saudis. I think that its a very hard word to use in the present tense without taking a side in a conflict and that it's best used in looking in hindsight.
I'll disagree with OCM? about Bush, but only on a technicality since I don't think that governments can be terrorist since the word implies independent groups operating against a government. One government may sponsor and support terrorists operating in another country, but they would never sponsor terrorists operating in their own country (with only a couple of exceptions). I also think that militaries can't be terrorists because there are fundamental philosophical differences between the groups. Otherwise, I think he (OCM?) could make a pretty good arguement for the inclusion of the US as terrorists.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|