That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists":
But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.".
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian's vile terror apologist, is at it again
This time, The Guardian's sanctimonious nitwit, who is so egregious a terror-apologist that even Bill Maher has called him out for it, was making excuses for the savages who beheaded an off-duty soldier on the streets of London yesterday: