A bit of an aside. Terrorism is a useless word now besides its propaganda value. The USA just declares whoever they don't like to be a terrorist, like how they just did to Iran's army, and now apparently they can legally assassinate any Iranian soldier. What's funny is Iran wants in on this propaganda game now, they designated the US army as terrorists.
I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to talk about "assassinating" soldiers any more than "terrorist attacks" on them. Those are things done to civilians by definition. We certainly don't want to promote the idea that "collateral damage" is necessary for a military operation to be ethical.
I think terrorism has a perfectly good definition - political lobbying/influence "by other means" than conventional politics, i.e. attacking and terrorizing civilians. Doesn't matter who does it or how exactly.
Maybe the US government doesn't exactly use that definition, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing as terrorism.
So, that's who this general was, an Iranian visiting some Iranian country? Was he there to see the fjords?
Anyway, telling me what I would think or say is unacceptable in a civil conversation. If I write something, you can assume I mean it, or you can disengage if you think I'm trolling.
If you're going to take my comments as justifying US actions, perhaps they can be taken that way, but they may apply to retaliation as well, no? Is there much of a gray area with military personnel in Iraq right now, who aren't Iraqis?
