Republican Guard
15th May 2003, 20:36
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/15/cole...rges/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/15/cole.bombing.charges/index.html)
"Two suspected al Qaeda terrorists were charged in the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, one of the deadliest terror strikes ever carried out against the U.S. military."
Hmmmm... doesn't the US GOV definition of "terrorism" specify that it targets NON-COMBATANTS?
Last time I checked, the COLE wasn't a fishing boat. I was a missile destroyer with enough firepower to level a small city. Non-combatant eh?
I've used the COLE example dozens of times to illlustrate how the gov/media can - simply by rewriting words - apply any label to any action they desire.
This was NOT terrorism; civilians were NOT targetted. Even though it occured outside of a period of war, international law stipulates that the suspects should be treated as POWs, not terrorists.
s.
"Two suspected al Qaeda terrorists were charged in the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, one of the deadliest terror strikes ever carried out against the U.S. military."
Hmmmm... doesn't the US GOV definition of "terrorism" specify that it targets NON-COMBATANTS?
Last time I checked, the COLE wasn't a fishing boat. I was a missile destroyer with enough firepower to level a small city. Non-combatant eh?
I've used the COLE example dozens of times to illlustrate how the gov/media can - simply by rewriting words - apply any label to any action they desire.
This was NOT terrorism; civilians were NOT targetted. Even though it occured outside of a period of war, international law stipulates that the suspects should be treated as POWs, not terrorists.
s.