"Which is to say, it’s attitudes like Greenwald’s that helped Nidal Hasan kill 13 people at Fort Hood."
A bit of hyperbole doesn't help Patterico's case.
But anyway, I think Greenwald's bigger point is twofold -- first, the point Patterico attacks, but second, can any attack on a military base be considered terrorism? I'm not sure it can be. Certainly it's violent, and it can also certainly be illegal. But it's a decidedly non-civilian target. We've used terrorism in the past to apply to all attacks by non-state foreign actors (including the Cole bombing, the bombing of the Marine barracks, etc.) but I think Greenwald is onto something when he says that these attacks aren't really...terrorism. Which isn't diminishing how awful they are--but it isn't the same thing as an Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11.
"Which is to say, it’s attitudes like Greenwald’s that helped Nidal Hasan kill 13 people at Fort Hood."
ReplyDeleteA bit of hyperbole doesn't help Patterico's case.
But anyway, I think Greenwald's bigger point is twofold -- first, the point Patterico attacks, but second, can any attack on a military base be considered terrorism? I'm not sure it can be. Certainly it's violent, and it can also certainly be illegal. But it's a decidedly non-civilian target. We've used terrorism in the past to apply to all attacks by non-state foreign actors (including the Cole bombing, the bombing of the Marine barracks, etc.) but I think Greenwald is onto something when he says that these attacks aren't really...terrorism. Which isn't diminishing how awful they are--but it isn't the same thing as an Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11.