3 ms·

It's really quite bizarre how official history sources unironically talk about a 'terrorist boat' inflicting a surprise attack on a 'destroyer'. https://www.fb

• echoangle 2y ago
  I’m not too familiar with the story but the lead sentence is “On October 12, 2000, two suicide pilots of a small bomb-laden boat pulled alongside of the USS Cole at midship, offered friendly gestures to several crew members, and detonated their explosives.”. Could this possibly fall under Article 37 c of the Geneva convention (“The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status”)? In that case, calling it terrorism wouldn’t be too bizarre in my opinion. I’m assuming the attackers didn’t wear any uniforms or insignia.
  • rtsil 2y ago
    But that would mean any attacks made by or involving spies are terrorism.
    • nradov 2y ago
      Yes, that would generally be defined as state-sponsored terrorism.
  • anigbrowl 2y ago
    It's hard to say. Military deception is a bit of a grey area by definition. Faking as medics or burial staff is generally regarded as an absolute no-go, but deceptive use of uniforms and so on is sometimes excused. There is a fairly extensive history of this in naval operations, where practicality dictates a whole ship has to be disguised if a deception is to be effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship