Quote:
Agrajag said:
Do you know of any arab country that condems terrorism?
|
I recall more than a few, but very few of them actually meant it.
Quote:
Now, do you know of any western country that condems terrorism? (try all of them)
|
Glib. Do you know of any Western country that profits from terrorism?
Unless you're sticking with your definition of terrorism as "a deliberate military attack on a civilian target for political ends". In which case, as Cainehill said, I can think of plenty of acts of terrorism openly perpetrated by Western nations, but that's where that semantics barrier comes into play again.
Assuming that's not the case, let me just hypothesize that, had they the entire freakin' US Military at their disposal, the Hamas would never have resorted to terrorism, either. Though they might just have indirectly orchestrated terrorist actions in hostile nations, and secretly sold guns to terrorist groups. But that's another one of those things that's in the distant, nay, ancient past, and could never happen today. Nope. Nosiree Bob. Because the world's voters are wiser, and less inclined to take things at face value, nor to elect someone just because he does a passable cowboy impression.
Quote:
Because "Freedom" has a positive connetation to it, and "Terrorism" does not. You are implying that something which is negative, is actually positive.
|
Just because they're murdering innocents and using utterly illegitimate means, doesn't mean they aren't fighting for freedom. Nor even that the nation or pseudonation for which they're fighting doesn't deserve its freedom.
Still, this is another one of those often meaningless terms that gets bandied about pretty much at random. Ya just don't see that many terrorists fighting for freedom these days.