no symbolic target, no representation

Submitted by myth (Germany), Nov 20, 2009 at 03:10

Jim, the USA does not spend a multi-bullion budget on a military that is a club of symbolic targets. They are the real thing, these people are part of the military that fight wars now. One way of showing this is the uniform. Here in Germany you get the point, the US-Airforce visible up in the air, largest US-military hospital in Landstuhl which is not for symbolic casualties at all. The US military does not represent American power, they *are* the American power. Let agree with Dr Pipes: a soldier is a military target, consequently "terror" is not the right word to use. Regardless of the 109 definitions, the goal of violent "terror-type" attacks is to attack people without being discriminate and by doing so intimidate everyone. An attack on a soldier does not serve this purpose for it creates the impression in civilian people they are not potential targets.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".