[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
>>To condemn terrorism as an exercise in ethical behaviour or in a college term paper make sense. It is after all "uncivilized" (whatever that means) behaviour.<<

My condemnation of terrorism is extremely practical and pragmatic, because it will (especially in the virulent form manifested by 21st century islamic terror) result in death, misery, and economic strain for everyone involved both directly and peripherally. It's hard to believe how any reasonable person could not understand this.

>>Instead of condemning (a wholly negative exercise) it is far better to understand the causes of the terrorist reaction.<<

The 'cause' is the belief on the part of some people that they can address whatever grievances they have - real, imagined, exaggerated, or misplaced - through committing violence upon others, then believing that they are justified in that belief.

Condemning terrorism is not a "negative exercise" - what is negative is trying to come up with rationalizations, justifications, and excuses for terror. For that is to miss the point, assuming that one begins with the premise that all people are human, and that all life is valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it safe for me to assume that this nonsense isn't satire? How is terrorism any different to militarism, is it because they are non uniformed combatants? The mind honestly boggles. I guess it's okay for the US to kill whoever they like, for whatever convoluted reasons they can manufacture, then to wholly condemn anyone who takes pre-emptive measures to defend themselves against this aggression. As we speak, Blair is having new rules written up to stop me objecting to the madness he has got me and my country involved in.

Mack