When did it become a presidential prerogative to redefine the meaning of words? Terrorists are people who injure or kill inconsequential people, whom they don't know and with whom they have no quarrel. Their purpose is to impress or affect the actions of those who have done them wrong.
So, by definition, the people who assassinate political, military or even religious leaders whom they perceive to have sold out their country to an occupying force don't qualify as terrorists. Giving them that name merely creates more confusion about what's really going on.
Indeed, one could more correctly argue that the Iraqi citizens killed in the fall of 2002 by American bombing runs, whose intent was to "provoke" Iraq into a retaliatory strike against some other hapless population, were really the victims of terror attacks, albeit orchestrated by the United States.
Obviously, there is nothing to preclude a nation from resorting to terroristic behavior. The definition depends on the innocence of the victims and the perpetrator's intent--to affect the behavior of someone other than the target--rather than the potency of the arsenal.
While this is not the first time the American president has mischaracterized the behavior of his opponents, what I want to know is why the press keeps letting him get away with it.
Posted by Hannah at June 29, 2005 06:53 AM