|
Parent Article: Any Video of Afghan Civilian Victims |
|
Provocations |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
23 May 2002
Modified: 24 May 2002 |
The killing of innocent civilians IS terrorism, whoever engages in it for whatever purposes. I made my position clear, but you still want to engage in a selective application of this standard, just like the Pentagon and the pResident.
Deeming the attacks on New Yorok and Washington as unprovoked is sophistry on your part. If people in other parts of the world had the means to retaliate (using your standards of what justifies an attack) for all the destruction that the US has engaged in in their own countries, the entire US would be a smoking ruin, just like the US left their countires as a smoking ruin. Which still doesn't justify the killing of civilians by either side, but it does give the reader some idea of what your self-serving definition of terrorism can lead to--somebody, somewhere, will use it against you, if you truly think that its terrorsim when the other side attacks, but holy-blessed retribution if your own side chooses to use violence to achieve your goals.
BTW, it should be emphasized that the Pentagon is a MILITARY target. By anyone standards, in war it is fair game. While the use of a civilian airliner to attack it was in itself an act of terrrorism, the choice of target, in this case, was legitimate under the rules of war. |
