Quote:
Agrajag said:
Quote:
KissBlade said:
Actually I don't know any arabic countries that openly condones terrorism so I'm not even sure which ones you're referring to here. The only ones that I can even guess at are the ones the media CLAIMS openly condones terrorism.
|
Do you know of any arab country that condems terrorism?
Now, do you know of any western country that condems terrorism? (try all of them)
Quote:
As for difference between attacking civilian targets and military targets. US bombs factories and plants that they claim are producing weapons, etc. Where do you draw the line?
|
I'd say right there is where I draw the line. Destroying military resources (IE Factories) is borderline. Exploding in a bus and killing many civilians, is definitely terrorism.
Quote:
Second, even if I dub "terrorism" as "freedom fighting", how does that in anyway support it?
|
Because "Freedom" has a positive connetation to it, and "Terrorism" does not. You are implying that something which is negative, is actually positive.
|
I am assuming you're not understanding what I'm saying because English isn't your primary language. Let me clarify. First off, I'm implying that BOTH are negative since they are one and the same.
Second, allow me to point out that the US has "accidentally" bombed embassies in the past. Just as factories where there were "suspected" of producing weapons were attacked. Vietnam, napalm was liberally used to attack suspected military targets destroying many many innocent lives. Yes, it was war, so how do you differentiate between a military target vs. civilian target? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Lives, are lives, that's point. The distinction between a "military" target and a "civilian" target is purely a manmade conclusion. As you've well shown.
As I've pointed out before, you explode a bus, you kill twenty civilians or so. You incite a rebellion, you kill THOUSANDS. You displace a ruler, TENS of THOUSANDS dies.