Killing an American makes you a terrorist*. Killing a gook makes you a hero.
Pretty simple stuff, really.
*(Or patriot who went a little too far...depends on your skin tone and/or religion. Dirka dirka.)
Place your bets..........
- Thread starter kidwoo
- Start date
Pretty simple stuff, really.
*(Or patriot who went a little too far...depends on your skin tone and/or religion. Dirka dirka.)
Dunno...but a lot of people in the mid-east seem to manage just fine...but I suppose burning one's dwelling is mostly metaphoric back there...Article said:
You live in NORWAY!!! STFU!!Article said:
Despite the banter, the Oaklahoma City Bombing is typically (universally?) called the "single worst domestic terrorist attack in US history" and even "the worst terrorist attack on American soil prior to 9/11."
US government training on terrorism, of which I've attended way too much, universally uses the same language.
Of course freakish white separatist neo-Nazi types think he's not a terrorist, just like Hizbullah tends to call its dead "martyrs." That doesn't mean mainstream thought--even among the vast majority of the American right wing--doesn't think he's a terrorist.
I also don't get the comparison with the underwear bomber who "didn't kill anyone." He tried to kill a whole planeload of people--maybe he's not a good terrorist, but despite his failed body count, his intent was certainly more mass murder than a Cessna could cause. Not that I think it matters in the least to either case
By this point, "terrorism" and "terrorist" are massive red herrings and terms of political art which obfuscate the issues at hand beyond any real use. At least we agree on that.
US government training on terrorism, of which I've attended way too much, universally uses the same language.
Of course freakish white separatist neo-Nazi types think he's not a terrorist, just like Hizbullah tends to call its dead "martyrs." That doesn't mean mainstream thought--even among the vast majority of the American right wing--doesn't think he's a terrorist.
I also don't get the comparison with the underwear bomber who "didn't kill anyone." He tried to kill a whole planeload of people--maybe he's not a good terrorist, but despite his failed body count, his intent was certainly more mass murder than a Cessna could cause. Not that I think it matters in the least to either case
By this point, "terrorism" and "terrorist" are massive red herrings and terms of political art which obfuscate the issues at hand beyond any real use. At least we agree on that.
Oui, c'est vrai.