[QWNPdpr5]

Listening to afternoon NPR story on the mixed blessings of Oil Deposits.

Example: Saudi Arabia- oil money can fund terrorists who, for example, recently targeted a member of the Saudi Royal Family.

Thought: Why, when you try and pop off Royalty, however ill or well conceived your plot, are you branded considered a terrorist?

~400 non-royal individuals lost their lives to violence in Philadelphia alone last year yet I have yet to hear a single perpetrator being labeled 'terrorist' or, if I do, it tends to be the type of informal labeling which happens on here or in off the cuff 'unofficial' PD statements.

It's probably because I don't listen closely enough, but, Why?

[Dwencejed]

Thought: Why, when you try and pop off Royalty, however ill or well conceived your plot, are you branded considered a terrorist?

[...]

Why?

Because killing a member of a royal family is an attack on the government, and an attack on the government is an act of terrorism.

In a monarchy, the head of state (king, queen, emperor, sultan or whatever) is the physical embodiment of the state (hence, Louis XIV comment, "l'etat, c'est moi."). Therefore, logically, all members of the royal family who are in line for the throne -no matter how distantly- are also physical embodiments of the state.

This is why the assassination of the Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand was able to touch off WWI, even though he wasn't heir to the throne: an attack on him was an attack on the state.

And also keep in mind that the Saudi conception of royalty is in line with that of England in the 1100's (pre-Magna Carta) and it all makes a lot more sense.

[QWNPdpr5]

Because killing a member of a royal family is an attack on the government, and an attack on the government is an act of terrorism.

In a monarchy, the head of state (king, queen, emperor, sultan or whatever) is the physical embodiment of the state (hence, Louis XIV comment, "l'etat, c'est moi."). Therefore, logically, all members of the royal family who are in line for the throne -no matter how distantly- are also physical embodiments of the state.

This is why the assassination of the Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand was able to touch off WWI, even though he wasn't heir to the throne: an attack on him was an attack on the state.

And also keep in mind that the Saudi conception of royalty is in line with that of England in the 1100's (pre-Magna Carta) and it all makes a lot more sense.

I agree with you; it just struck me as a very feudalistic, Un-American (in the foreign sense) concept. Especially when you consider that American assassins- Oswald, Hinckley, and that woman who just came up for parole for bringing the gun to meet Gerald Ford- are usually painted as mentally imbalanced and/or called by what they are: Assassins.

Interesting comparison with the other monarchical lines...

[Dwencejed]

I agree with you; it just struck me as a very feudalistic, Un-American (in the foreign sense) concept.

Yes, that's my point: Saudi Arabia is still a feudalistic society. They won't start to change until they have to.

Especially when you consider that American assassins- Oswald, Hinckley, and that woman who just came up for parole for bringing the gun to meet Gerald Ford- are usually painted as mentally imbalanced and/or called by what they are: Assassins. Right, because even through our President is Head of State, he is not the physical embodiment of our government (that would be the Constitution, though we don't officially say that), and he is endlessly replaceable.

Monarchies create stability through vesting power in the monarch and through the line of succession. We've created stability by creating a government that is a system of interchangeable parts.

I think our system is more successful, but I'm biased.

Interesting comparison with the other monarchical lines... I'm sure if an assassination attempt were made on one of Elizabeth's children (or their children), it would be treated as a terrorist attack in the UK. The assassination of Lord Mountbatten in the 1970's certainly was.

[QWNPdpr5]

That's what I thought vis-a-vis some of the statements made about Irish Nationalists by the Brits. They started referring to attacks by Provisionals on armed soldiers as terrorism- in an effort to delegitimatize their cause, I guess. I noticed that initially some of that language was applied pretty liberally to what we now refer to as Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Having said all that and taking the history lesson, I'm not sure I consider the attempted assassination of a Saudi Royal to be on par with blowing oneself up on a passenger bus and I certainly am more wary of our own domestic neighborhood terrorists than I am of some poorly defined hypothetical foreigner who wants to kill or injure me, personally, not for my 3 yr. old bottom of the line cellphone and 13 dollars but because he "hates my freedom."

I think it would be interesting to take a college level course on Linguistics and/in Current Events.