hell no
2007-03-09 07:16:10 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Firstly, the word "terrorist" is very, very subjective. In the past, several others have been called "terrorists" for simply having views different from that of those seeking to dictate to and plunder from them. While these people are considered "terrorists", they consider themselves to be freedom fighters - fighting for their rights to be able to decide their own destiny.
Though I am not a "terrorist" to realists, I would, however, do whatsoever is effective to rid my homeland of invaders! I believe that people have the right to determine their own destiny in their homeland!
2007-03-09 08:01:05 · answer #1 · answered by Netsbridge 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think some cultures have more regard for life. That's the problem with dealing with terrorists. How do you deal with a culture that is so deeply ingrained with fundamentalism to the point of fanaticism and does not have a deep regard for human life? If nothing matters more then their fanatical religious beliefs, then in that vain, what can we do that would stop the indiscriminate killing? I don't think it's the whole culture, it's sectors. That's our only hope, that there are more people who want a democracy and freedoms, rather than be ruled by a fundamentalist radical terrorist sect.
2007-03-09 07:39:41 · answer #2 · answered by Inquisitive 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is hard to say how the fanatic's mind works. I don't think I would kill myself in a suicide bombing nor would I douse myself in gasoline and light a match, nor would I drink a glass of Jim Jones' kool aid.
2007-03-09 07:30:45 · answer #3 · answered by don n 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I'd be smart enough to go to an electronics store and rig up a simple remote detonation device.
2007-03-09 07:22:50 · answer #4 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is why I am not terrorist nor anyone who has a functioning brian.
2007-03-09 08:06:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋