I think that something was semantically lost when “terrorist” became the generic term that is used today.
I’m going to attempt to be both neutral and clear here, as someone who has been in the industry. What the Houthis are doing are acts of war. Whether or not one believes or sympathizes with their declared motivations aside, they are committing acts of violence against military and civilian vessels. Other nations are justified in striking Houthi targets to degrade their capabilities under every legal and moral concept of Just War theory. It doesn’t matter if you’re rooting for one side or the other - the Houthis without provocation are firing upon vessels.
That’s not terrorism. That is making war. Attacking warships isn’t terrorism. Attacking civilian vessels doing trade that you’re blockading isn’t terrorism. It’s been done pretty much since we’ve put to sea.
The definition of terrorism got weird when people realized that incidents like Hiroshima would be considered terrorism. They inexplicably stuck in a phrase about “non-state actors” which still staggers me as a qualifier. Then they called the Taliban terrorists when they fired at US Marine units.
“Terrorist” as a designation by the US government has certain legal implications, and that’s why it gets considered and applied. What they really mean, though, is that it is an enemy combat force. Designate them as an “enemy combatant organization.”
So much this.
I find the legal definition of “terrorist” is all encompassing of various groups, like insurgents, “freedom fighter” and “liberation army”, but that it’s only applied according to what is politically advantageous.
I’m in no way as well versed as you are, but it all seems to have the same judicial vibe as “Citizens United” qualifying corporations as individuals… like what? Corporations are by definition a group, but also, legally, an individual?
What the heck is going on with US legaleese the past decades?
Trump is evil. Don’t do it.
