Or a country who allows their presidant to kill innocent people, for a cause based on deciet, greed and desire for political power? Furthermore, am I a terrorist for questioning my goverment, even though I cannot believe that what we are doing in Iraq is right... Violence only brings more Violence. Two wrongs... Can never make a right. Can it?
2006-07-08 05:59:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Since the Coalition military is targeting terrorist and not innocents, I have to disagree with your statement. The terrorist however are targeting innocent people. I don't how many times you say it, or how many ways you want to phrase the questions, the facts are the facts. So there is nothing to "make right".
2006-07-08 06:07:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The group that kill innocent people is a terrorist. When people hang around terrorists and someone is waging war against the terrorists. They should expect to be killed. When innocent civilians are killed on purpose the person responsible should be investigated and if warranted tried and if found guilty serve time.
If civilians are killed by accident there should be an investigation on what went wrong and that information should be used to improve accuracy.
Violence brings more violence ask Tibet what peace brings?
Peace only works when dealing with rational people.
No but three rights make a left.
2006-07-08 06:14:52 · answer #2 · answered by Luchador 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You make a very good point. I think both are terrorists. There's a saying - and it's different from this, but you'll get the idea - that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The war in Iraq has created a breeding ground for terrorists. It's provided them with a battleground and a cause. Many will say that this is one of the benefits of the Iraq war - believing that it's better to fight terrorists in Iraq than in the USA - but the Iraqi people would disagree with that. They fail to realize that the increase in terrorists in Iraq is a result of the war.
2006-07-09 12:53:08 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well a year or two ago the government changed their definition of terrorism so it would not apply to them, convenient huh?...so in your first example using their definition, if the extremist does is not officially connected to a recognized government then yes they are a terrorist while the other is not.
no, even by the definition you are not a terrorist for questioning these things, though if the patriot act which is defined rather loosely were to be applied with a broad net, you might qualify for an investigation(so far it has not really been cast this broadly)
two wrong can not make a right, but three lefts can make a right, or three rights can make a left :)
2006-07-08 06:08:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are right they are both terrorist. violence only brings more violence and hatred. If only more people realized this. By killing innocent people the government only creates more terrorists. Also watch what you say about the government they have so much power that they could call you anything and take away all your rights.
2006-07-08 06:18:23 · answer #5 · answered by mysterio 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ok.. take a minute. Look around you. Think about what people have in other countries around the world. Why do you have it better? Magic? Did the good country fairy bestow favor on The United States? You demand a certain level of protection..a certain standard of living.. and then question the means by which this is obtained for you... Look down at your hands now... see that red stuff? It's on your hands too.
2006-07-08 06:12:29 · answer #6 · answered by claymore 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are not a terrorist. You are perfectionist. You want to be proud of everything in your life, and the country you live in, no matter how beautiful and great, does not make you proud, because you know it's government is wrong. All i want to know is why more people don't think like you? Do they really need 30000 bombs going off in USA , 80000 dead people, to realize what all those fighting jets they admire are really made for,
or what all those soldiers we love are really doing in Iraq. I have been to the war, and let me tell you, it really made it worse in every way.
2006-07-08 06:14:40 · answer #7 · answered by sheba 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If violence only brings more violence and two wrongs can never make a right... then was it wrong for the world to oppose Hitler and his Holocaust? Shouldn't everyone have tried the diplomatic approach?
2006-07-08 06:03:10 · answer #8 · answered by jmofwiw 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither one is right. However, you must remember one is a reaction to the other.
History is full of examples of the need to defend oneself. Sadly we haven't evolved that much in 2000 years.
The danger with terrorism is it becomes killing for the sake of killing. The old style terrorists used to have a political agenda. Today's terrorist is a media hound looking to shock and awe the world with their next act of horror.
I will never excuse the excesses of my own country in its attempt to protect itself, but I will never...ever have sympathy for terrorists who believe that the murder of innocents guarantees them a place in paradise. The devil is talking to those boys and I have a feeling they will be surprised by their afterlife.
2006-07-08 06:09:57 · answer #9 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Violence antagonistic to violence would or gained't be incorrect yet heritage has shown that anyplace violence has been used to counter the violence(truly than to contain it),the violence has cascading outcome and been counter effective.faith isn't the the reason for terrorism yet lack of expertise,certain.what's will be finished is convey preparation and expertise,shrink poverty and integration of remoted communities in to global significant bypass existence.
2016-10-14 06:12:30 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋