re: #98 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

The point he’s making is trivially true: it was an attack on a military asset, not civilians. It was still a terrorist attack, carried out by terrorists in an attempt not to defeat the US militarily— the number of deaths and the material destroyed is utterly insignificant— but to affect the civilian population.

“Terrorist” isn’t an inherently negative phrase, either. Chuck Yeager, when he was with the French Resistance, became in his own words a ‘terrorist bomber’. He blew up (military) trains with the Maquis. Part of what they were trying to do was to scare collaborators into not wanting to drive those troop trains.

Never knew that Yeager helped the French Resistance during WWII. Anyhow, strange that he would use it in a positive context. I’m so used to hearing it as a pejorative.