Comment by Ajedi32

Comment by Ajedi32 18 hours ago

I think the more relevant part in that particular case is "subnational groups". The USS Cole attack was obviously not an act of war by Yemen against the US, so it needed to be investigated as a terrorist attack instead.

> The extensive FBI investigation ultimately determined that members of the al Qaeda terrorist network planned and carried out the bombing.

[...]

> By the end of 2000, Yemeni authorities had arrested several suspects, including Jamal Muhammad Ahmad Al-Badawi and Fahad Muhammad Ahmad Al-Quso

(Source: https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing)

You don't generally call in the FBI to "investigate" a military attack, or "arrest suspects".

If the nation of Yemen had immediately claimed responsibly for the exact same attack and declared war, it wouldn't have been considered terrorism, and rightfully so.

jhanschoo 17 hours ago

So from what I gather, we are observing either by accident or design a lack of a properly neutral term to designate non-state actors acting against a state's military. Because there is no shortage of material US support for such actors in recent history (I pointed out in another comment the Kurdish resistance in Syria), yet Anglophone media rarely consider US a state sponsor of terrorists.

Reply View 1 reply

Ajedi32 12 hours ago

Yeah, language can be a bit fuzzy around the edges. But when your objective is to overthrow your own government (or win independence for yourself, like the Kurds are), and you're not intentionally targeting civilians, I'd say that's more "rebels" than "terrorists".
If the USS Cole bombers were rebels trying to gain their independence from Yemen (which I don't think is even their stated objective?) and not terrorists they would have been prioritizing Yemeni military targets, not those of uninvolved foreign nations.

Reply View | 0 replies