4 ms·

A bit of an aside. Terrorism is a useless word now besides its propaganda value. The USA just declares whoever they don't like to be a terrorist, like how they

by guelo 7y ago

A bit of an aside. Terrorism is a useless word now besides its propaganda value. The USA just declares whoever they don't like to be a terrorist, like how they just did to Iran's army, and now apparently they can legally assassinate any Iranian soldier. What's funny is Iran wants in on this propaganda game now, they designated the US army as terrorists.

perl4ever 7y ago
I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to talk about "assassinating" soldiers any more than "terrorist attacks" on them. Those are things done to civilians by definition. We certainly don't want to promote the idea that "collateral damage" is necessary for a military operation to be ethical. I think terrorism has a perfectly good definition - political lobbying/influence "by other means" than conventional politics, i.e. attacking and terrorizing civilians. Doesn't matter who does it or how exactly. Maybe the US government doesn't exactly use that definition, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as terrorism.
- guelo 7y ago
  If we killed some European general that was visiting some European country you would say that we had assassinated him.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    "Visiting...some European country" So, that's who this general was, an Iranian visiting some Iranian country? Was he there to see the fjords? Anyway, telling me what I would think or say is unacceptable in a civil conversation. If I write something, you can assume I mean it, or you can disengage if you think I'm trolling. If you're going to take my comments as justifying US actions, perhaps they can be taken that way, but they may apply to retaliation as well, no? Is there much of a gray area with military personnel in Iraq right now, who aren't Iraqis?
Gigablah 7y ago
> What's funny is Iran wants in on this propaganda game now Now? You might be missing some context on the whole Middle East conflict.
ReptileMan 7y ago
They designated parts of the Revolutionary Guard terrorists, which is not Iran Army.

by guelo 7y ago

perl4ever 7y ago

I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to talk about "assassinating" soldiers any more than "terrorist attacks" on them. Those are things done to civilians by definition. We certainly don't want to promote the idea that "collateral damage" is necessary for a military operation to be ethical. I think terrorism has a perfectly good definition - political lobbying/influence "by other means" than conventional politics, i.e. attacking and terrorizing civilians. Doesn't matter who does it or how exactly. Maybe the US government doesn't exactly use that definition, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as terrorism.

guelo 7y ago
If we killed some European general that was visiting some European country you would say that we had assassinated him.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  "Visiting...some European country" So, that's who this general was, an Iranian visiting some Iranian country? Was he there to see the fjords? Anyway, telling me what I would think or say is unacceptable in a civil conversation. If I write something, you can assume I mean it, or you can disengage if you think I'm trolling. If you're going to take my comments as justifying US actions, perhaps they can be taken that way, but they may apply to retaliation as well, no? Is there much of a gray area with military personnel in Iraq right now, who aren't Iraqis?

Gigablah 7y ago

> What's funny is Iran wants in on this propaganda game now Now? You might be missing some context on the whole Middle East conflict.

ReptileMan 7y ago

They designated parts of the Revolutionary Guard terrorists, which is not Iran Army.