[DoritoChef]

While this is definitely a personal opinion, my takeaway is that the image of terrorism that is commonly painted on the nightly news in the US is vastly different from what terrorism is in the rest of the world.

Reading this article made me reflect on my understanding on the goals of counter-terrorist measures of the United States and how they (somewhat hypocritically) revolve entirely around a consequentialist point of view.

Maybe I have my tin foil hat a little to snug on my head, but I can't seem to find a way in which the mentality of the U.S. government's perception of "terrorism" has evolved from the days of COINTELPRO. To the US government, the only difference between MLK and Kim Jong Un is that only one of those was a threat to the state in 60's while the other is a threat now.

While I'm admittedly not really well versed in stoicism, I believe that an individual's oikeiôsis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikei%C3%B4sis) of something or someone else is the guiding factor of how they act or behave towards something. However, is it really fair to hold people to the same standard as a government?

[pmoriarty]

"To the US government, the only difference between MLK and Kim Jong Un is that only one of those was a threat to the state in 60's while the other is a threat now."

I'm not seeing the analogy. Did MLK have some secret stash of nuclear weapons I'm not aware of? Was he threatening to attack the US or its allies with them?