Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
OK, so it's OK to bomb actual terrorists, but not those affiliated with a nation state.
"Terrorist is the new catch all ,, I am sorry actions conducted against foreign military targets by militants who wish us forces out of their countries, is not Terrorism, kill civilians shopping in a market or blow up a mosque or church that's Terrorism "
OK. SO what do you call it, when in 2011 the Obama administration uncovered a plot by Soleimani to hire Mexican drug cartels, to plant a bomb in a Washington DC restaurant, with the goal of assassinating the Saudi ambassador to the US? Is that a legitimate act of a sovereign nation-state, or is that an act of terror? Look it up, because that happened, was called Operation Red Coalition, I think. But it happened. That's not the act of a terrorist?
You're saying he wasn't a terrorist because he was in the employ of the nation of Iran?
I don't know that defining someone as a terrorist is an exact, precise science. There can be judgment and disagreement. But you're in a distinct minority if you feel this guy wasn't a terrorist.
I agree with you that targeting terrorists is nit the same as targeting legitimate military officials of another sovereign nation. Most people feel Soleimini was both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_a...ssination_plot |
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NATO defines terrorism in the AAP-06 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, Edition 2019 as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence, instilling fear and terror, against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, or to gain control over a population, to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives". [50]
Nowhere does it say stateless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Threaded Mode