I fully agree.A terrorist is someone who uses fear in order to pursue a political agenda. This fear can be violence, the fear of violence to others or self, or some other medium.
Terrorists can be individuals, groups, and even entire governments.
A terrorist is someone who uses fear in order to pursue a political agenda. This fear can be violence, the fear of violence to others or self, or some other medium.
Terrorists can be individuals, groups, and even entire governments.
The Egyptians were evil. :smil:
I see psychopathes as sick people who need help. they are like crazy people. something isnt working right in their mind... society have to be merciful with them and put them in psychatric hospitals and such to treat them.I have been in the company of many international terrorists. ETA (Basques); IRA, UVF, Arab and various east European murderers. Most of them were psychopathic killers
what can we do to these people? having an opinion isnt a crime. we must tolerate opposing opinions, even the extreem ones if we want to promote freethinking.However, there are those who hide, feed and help terrorists and we generally call them sympathisers.
I would call them "morons". in the strict definition of this word. low intelligence part of population. they are in prison, it's a proof that they arent very smart.Should we call them terrorist sympathisers?
I'm shocked by this sentence. honestly, I dont judge people on their looks. I dont care about the ethnicity. there is people who joined Al-Quaeda from all over the world, the US, France, Africa... you name it...I am concerned about the number of people I see entering my country who look just like the ones who danced with joy.
who you are talking about? these people you talk about are a very small minority. you shouldnt even care about them.I know they are not terrorists, but I also know that in their eyes I am the infidel because I am British.
they dont make a lot of sense to me.I was wondering, is there any tangible difference between "asymmetric" and "unconventional" in terms of general warfare?
the war against terrorism is in this case then... professional armies fighting peasants with rifles and hand made explosives...Asymmetric warfare originally referred to war between two or more belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly.
but where is the honor in doing that in the middle of old men, women and children in a market trying to make a living...
it's so stupid...
Harris isnt god. If he was sending little boys into war, does it make it right for us to do so?In what respect would the bombing of innocent civilians from the air differ from this, to take an example Harris's campaign to bomb the will out of German civilians?
Mankind lears from itself. when you start killing innocent civilians because it's good for you. Mankind will learn that "killing innocents is an answer we can choose"... you teach a new dirty trick to this big monkey we call mankind.I would say there is directly none . However, one can look at the wider consequences of that bombing and ask, 1) to what extent does it acheive the overall war aim, and 2) would it make the world better for human society in general?
men are born free. men are responsible for their actions.I'm not too sure what 'honor' in war really means except the perception of fairness and duty, but this requires considerable thought. It may be more justified to kill an unarmed civilian who is responsible for genocide than an incompetent armed conscript who doesn't even agree with what he is doing.
without a good reason. and the good reason is "direct threat" (e.g. pointing a rifle at your head)
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.