Terrorist [was: and....]

[Trei, Peter]

> measl at mfn.org[SMTP:measl at mfn.org]
> 
> 
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Eric Cordian wrote:
> 
> > Regarding terrorists.  Our government conveniently defines a "terrorist"
> > as any sub-national group that breaks the law in order to influence
> > opinion.
> > Note under such a definition, no recognized government can commit a
> > terrorist act, even if it firebombs nuns and orphans holding kittens.
> Close, but not quite.  It does not require the breaking of law, only
> actions which are in some way "offensive".
> Yours,
> J.A. Terranson
> 
You also forget another critical condition: It's OK if your sub-national
group opposes a government which the US dislikes; therefore those
trying to overthrow Saadam are 'freedom fighters'., rather than
terrorists. 

The same group can easily flip from one status to another as outside 
conditions change - many of the Afghanis the USG now labels 
'terrorists' were started on their careers as US sponsored 
'freedom fighters'.

Another example: Kurds striving to establish Kurdistan are regarded
by the US as either freedom fighters or terrorists, depending which
side of the Turkish/Iraqi border they are on.

Of course, by the US Governments definition, George Washington 
and the other Founding Fathers were terrorists.

'We have always been at war with EastAsia'.

Peter Trei