In the last hour or so, someone threw grenades into command tents at one of our bases in Kuwait, injuring at least eight soldiers. CNN refers to this as a “terrorist attack.”
I don’t get it. This is a war. If our soldiers attack, it’s termed “combat,” but any attack on our side is “terrorism?” How is it “terrorism” to sneak into an enemy camp and attack by throwing grenades? Isn’t this just a normal part of war?
As I understand it, terrorism is acts which are designed to instill fear in the populace.
It gives me the impression that our media is not reporting this incident fairly. If anything, call it a “sneak attack” or infiltration. It’s as if they feel that they must call anyone who attacks us “terrorists” even if we’re engaged in open conflict. It’s absurd. Under this defintion, the use of an A-10 Attack Aircraft could be considered terrorism.
The use of the word “terrorism” certainly seems erroneous in that instance - but then, I’m not terribly impressed with CNN these days. They’re really starting to irk me. Maybe I’ve just been watching it too much??
I think it’s “terrorism” because it happened in Kuwait, an allied country, and not technically in hostile territory – same as if, say someone tossed a grenade over the fence of one of our bases in England.
Admittedly it’s a fine line, but CNN’s description is probably technically correct.
I do see your point, but if Iraqi troops skipped across the border into Turkey, should we not be allowed to attack them because they’ve crossed the line? This is not a game of “tag” in which just by touching the “base” you can avoid being tagged.
One of our major problems in Vietnam was because Vietnamese soldiers kept slipping over into Cambodia where we could not attack them. We then attacked Cambodia in order to get at the Vietnamese troops there, justifying by saying that they were using that country as a “safe harbor” to store their troops before attacking us.
We are using that country as a base to store our troops in order to attack their country. It’s my opinion that at attack on a military target in time of war (or armed conflict–whatever you want to call it) cannot ever be called “terrorism.”
Our troops should not reasonably consider themselves safe or “off limits” just because they’re on the other side of that line. No soldier on the “other side” can be expected to say, “Aw, shoot! They crossed the border before we could get them. Oh well! Better luck next time.”
Peanuthead: It’s not treason (please check the Constitution {the document, not the aged wooden sailing vessel}). It’s a criminal act, murder and attempted murder.
Have you got a cite for that? Neither the BBC nor ITN have mentioned that fact and the only paper I’ve seen today is an Observer that was printed too early to cover the story in depth.
It’s defined as ‘terrorism’ because CNN is just the mouthpiece of Washington - much like Iraq’s state-run TV station is the mouthpiece of Saddam’s regime. It’s a propaganda war.
The summary at Google News says that CBS reported the phrase, and the story was 9 hours old when I read it at 10 AM this Sunday morning. So it must have been out there.