…from
Col Pat Lang.
Does the Times now believe that armed resistance to a government, any government is by definition "terrorism?"
And furthermore...
By that standard was George Washington a terrorist? Were the Machabees terrorists? How about Simon Bolivar, was he a terrorist? Was Emilio Aguinaldo a terrorist?
Are the Baluchis? Really?
That's not rhetorical. I'm about as non-authoritative about Iranian political and religious factions as you'll find. It's not hard to imagine that a group that's a religious, cultural, geographic and language minority has a legitimate grievance or two with an authoritarian fundamentalist regime.
Of course, there's a counter-argument to be made along the lines of "So what?" Sure, insurgents and revolutionaries use terror. What else, in many cases, do they have? Terror is, by these terms, simply a tactic, to be used for good or ill, and shouldn't be considered a pejorative at all absent context. I confess that I'm pretty sympathetic to this notion.
Yep, good question. Got me thinkin'...
Labels: Baluch, Good Question, Iran, Terrorism