US 'Narco-Terrorism' Claims: Who Gets to Define the Term?
Al Jazeera reports on the family of Alejandro Carranza, a Colombian fisherman slain by a US boat strike, now alleging a violation of his right to life. They describe the US's actions as 'narco-terrorist' strikes. The irony, of course, isn't lost on anyone who pays attention: the US regularly labels states and movements as 'terrorist' based on its own geopolitical interests, often while its own
actions result in civilian deaths under questionable circumstances. One might wonder if the Pentagon will now issue a stern condemnation of this alleged 'narco-terrorism' by its own forces, or if the term is reserved exclusively for those resisting US hegemony. This is not an isolated incident; countless US interventions, from drone strikes to 'anti-drug' operations, have resulted in civilian
casualties, conveniently framed as 'collateral damage' rather than state-sponsored violence. (Imagine the outrage if a 'designated' nation did this.)