mgod wrote on Fri, 28 December 2007 16:23 |
[.
|
1. Is it sufficient to simply be a soldier in uniform in an unnecessary immoral war to say that its not terrorism that is being practiced on the innocent non-uniformed people in an invaded country?
2., is this somehow better than your definition of terrorism, simply because thy weren't specifically targeted?
3. Your concept of moral equivalence is I think very shaky, and morally dubious. It can easily be made to serve what's easy for the perpetrators of violence and death-dealing. Which in this case, in Iraq, is us.
4. Some Saudis used planes to kill 3000 innocent Americans. In response we invaded a sovereign nation not involved in that act and killed between 100,000 and 655,000 innocents - and not coincidentally, now about 4000 of our own. Somehow, you find a way to justify that response as legitimate and NOT terrorism. The message to the world is "Don't fuck with us! Did you see what we did to those asshole Iraqis who didn't attack us? Just imagine what we'll do to you if you do - unless you're Saudi."
5. Its beyond me.
DS[/quote]
1. Yes, it is sufficient. We don't consider Nazi soldiers terrorists, do we?
2. Yes, there is a huge moral difference in my mind when the targeting of innocents is the PRIMARY goal.
3. Any concept of morality can be twisted.
4. The last line should be, "Don't fuck with us! If you attack our innocent civilians on our own soil and you allow the perpetrators to come and go and train in your country, arm them and support them we are coming after you." And yes, it should have applied to the Saudis as well.
5. Clearly