Loc: Alexandria, VA
Well, we have (apparently) an aggrieved party upset at the US Government who used an aircraft as a weapon against a civilian target ...
Is this "Terrorism"? If not, why not, and how is this any different from the 9/11 attacks? Does the fact that the perpetrator was an American make a difference? What if it were to be revealed that the pilot had somehow received assistance from a foreign source -- would that change it to/from a "terrorist act"? If the pilot had survived, would there be calls for him to be tried by a military tribunal? A civilian court? Why or why not?
Is the label "Terrorist" or "Terrorism" at this point even at all useful beyond mere political opportunism? Does it accurately describe an activity that can be defined objectively?
On the one hand, Stack was as much a terrorist as Timothy Mcveigh in that he acted on his grievances with the gov't. On the other hand, this was no more an act of terrorism than the Ft. Hood shootings, perpetrated by an unstable, despondent man.
But yeah, "terrorism" has been de-fanged and overused much like the "F" word.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.