We call the illegal killing terrorism whilst those like the US are legal and don't intentially target civilans. Which is why its not terrorism I diagree with, its the killing in general, the US killing and the terrorist, they're as bad as one another. I think that it could be resovled by talking if the West wasn't so up its arse, wanting to track down and 'bring people to justice'. Which is revenge in itself. Without considering that you're actually killing their people and the fact you're threatening their culture.(Original post by halloweenjack)
The majority people who do kill will end up with some form of guilty feelings, these will turn into greater problems. Look at the Falklands, more British soldiers have comitted suicide since the war than died during it. The human mind doesn't cope well with killing.
That is where we will have to disagree, i think the person you kill bears the responsibility in some situations.
Terroism as i said, means many things. The insurgency in iraq for example, there are so many different groups after many different things. Some are justified others are not. Those that target solely coalition forces (soldiers) are imo justified. Those that kill maim or murder civilians, contractors or anyone else are not.
I personally only see terrorism as an act if it kills or injures civillians, that is where my distinction would be. If it is purely targetted at military installations and soldiers are maimed and killed, well unfortunately thats the risk you take when you sign on the dotted line imo.
Whish is why I'm saying, it's the killing thats wrong here, in this circumstance, and thats to both sides equally.
Turn on thread page Beta
Is terrorism ever justified? watch
- 14-07-2005 16:36