| Revision as of 15:35, 8 April 2002 editEd Poor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,217 editsm difficult to define | Revision as of 16:05, 8 April 2002 edit undoEclecticology (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,056 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| I don't think I have a handle on the issue. I just yearn for a world where no one would ever want to kill anyone!!! ] | I don't think I have a handle on the issue. I just yearn for a world where no one would ever want to kill anyone!!! ] | ||
| :IMHO the specific act of suicide bombing is inherently neither terrorist nor non-terrorist. It is only one tactic among many others. The specific choice of target determines its terrorist nature. ] | |||
Revision as of 16:05, 8 April 2002
I tried to define suicide bombing objectively, as well as to present two of the main ethical appraisals of it. A difficulty in discussing anything to do with "terrorism" is, of course, that many advocates persuasively maintain that their side isn't guilty of terrorism: their targets are legitimate, the women and children aren't innocent, and so forth.
It can be difficult to refute such arguments, while consistently justifying the military bombing of cities in declared war: e.g., Dresden, Hiroshima.
I don't think I have a handle on the issue. I just yearn for a world where no one would ever want to kill anyone!!! Ed Poor
- IMHO the specific act of suicide bombing is inherently neither terrorist nor non-terrorist. It is only one tactic among many others. The specific choice of target determines its terrorist nature. Eclecticology