Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to A question for Mark Eby: What is your definition of 'terrorist'?

Your Definition Is Pretty Good
Mark Eby — (archived)

Then you missapply it by ignoring much of it particularly the targeting of innocents. That's part of the moron problem I often speak of. War is bad. Some of the bad side effects of it apply both to normal soldiers and terrorists. That doesn't make them the same thing. Motivation and intent count. It counts because of the proportion of innocents killed. It counts even more because of what will happen when one side wins. If the terrorists win they keep employing the same tactics with the same bloody side effects to maintain power. If we win Iraq becomes a democracy. It is truely moronic not to get that difference.

Someone attacking US troups because they are occupiers is not a terrorist act nore would it be if the circumstances were reversed. Some of the attackers might be motivated by that issue. It is clear however that most of the attacks are related and that they are carried out primarily by people willing to use any means to maintain power over Iraq's people including disinformation about civilian casualties. It is moronic to expect terrorists willing to kidnap and kill aid workers, people trying to rebuild Iraq, and mere truckers as well as targeting innocent bystanders to be honest about civilian casualties.

As for rights - read the constitution.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (92 posts)