What makes a terrorist a terrorist?

That's what doesn't make sense to me. You claim that the terrorists are "criminals" and that Israel is justified in "fighting crime". But in Canada (and presumably the U.S.), if the crime-fighters "act wrongly", it is a crime - i.e. they become criminals.The Canadian Army will not bulldoze my house if I harbour terrorists. If I commit terrorist acts in Canada and run to hide in the U.S., the Canadian Army will not shell the U.S. trying to get me.Your "definition" of terrorism seems to be tailor-made to fit the people that you want to label as "terrorists". Everybody else conveniently doesn't fit your definition.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

And the point that I have been trying to make is... at what point does a country's "struggle for survival" become wrong? Is absolutely any action on their part justifiable?Jesus had a little saying about "turning the other cheek". Do you think that applies to individuals only? Or can it apply to individuals incorporated into nations?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Okay then, if we have two sets of criminals fighting against each other, why label one set as "terrorists" and not the other? Not at all. If we're talking about supposed "criminal" actions, then history and provocation don't even enter into it. If I rob a bank, does it matter why I robbed it? Does it matter how big the bank is?A crime is an act that violates a specific law, not just a national policy. Criminal acts are dealt with by law enforcement agencies, not armies. Criminal acts are tried in a court of law, not on a battlefield. Criminals are sentenced to be punished, not to have their neighbours' houses demolished. So the Canadian Army would be justified in shelling my property in the U.S.? Nonsense. Definitions have to be useful. Nobody else has given a definition of terrorism because it isn't as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. A useful definition may not be possible. I wasn't suggesting that you were being underhanded. Just biased.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You keep assuming that I'm taking sides when I haven't taken any side. I'm trying to show that the "definition" of "terrorist" is blurry - and that your "definition" is particularly useless. You haven't shown that it is. I'm suggesting that some examples are get-out-of-my-country-driven. Those examples could be called "self-defense" instead of "terrorism". Not necessarily. The IRA terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland was (originally) aimed at getting the British invaders out of Ireland. It certainly was defensive, not aggressive. Nonsense. You're demonizing one set of terrorists and "defining" all terrorists by your misunderstanding of that one group. Not necessarily. The IRA campaign in Northern Ireland (originally) targeted British soldiers and police. The aim was to convince the British public that it wasn't desirable to continue their presence in Ireland. Terrorism is typically done by people who don't have a national army - so that distinction is particularly useless. All warfare is secretive. Armies seldom advertise their plans. Stealth bombers don't carry neon signs. Submarines are designed to be "sneaky". Yet another useless distinction.-------------If terrorism is "criminal" activity, why is it not treated like criminal activity? You don't see the Canadian Army shelling the U.S. to get criminals who have escaped there.A government that uses military means to combat terrorism is tacitly admitting that the terrorists are military combatants, not criminals.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Maybe that should tell you something.Don't worship the "fulfilled prophecy" of the state of Israel to the point where you lose all touch with what is right and wrong.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Oxymoron? Or Freudian slip?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Not true at all. Legality/illegality is about the action, not the motivation. Motivation can sometimes mitigate bad actions, but it can never excuse bad actions.The number of deaths is certainly more important than the motivation. Is it permissible to kill hundreds to save dozens? Show us the math.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Irrelevant. If I drive drunk and unintentionally kill people, it's still illegal. Irrelevant. If Hezbollah sends innocent pedestrians out in the street when I'm driving drunk, it's still my responsibility.And sympathy is never "mindless". Shame on you. Still false, no matter how many times you repeat it. My motivation might be to go and help the needy, but if I drive drunk to get there, it's still wrong.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

---

Jesus didn't single out muderers the way you do - He had sympathy for all sinners. If He was "mindless", I guess us lefties are in good company.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes, there are any number of analogies - and they all produce the same conclusion.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I didn't say a word about forgiveness. I said Jesus had sympathy for all sinners - even unrepentant ones. You called that "mindless."Unbelievable how you misapply scripture.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC