I still like my basic definition, somewhat modified: Terrorists are ideological highwaymen. Criminals.
They theoretically could be romantic defenders of some great principle, such as ...
... get your invasion out of my country?
I concur that the behavior is criminal, but I also think
they consider the reason (by whatever ideology is involved - religion, anarchy, freedom, ... etc.) justifies the action, and this needs to be recognized.
To deal with the terrorist you need to (1) treat the individuals as criminals, to be found, brought to justice, convicted (when guilty) by police action not military, and (2) deal with the ideology that generates new terrorists (especially if it is based on injustice or discrimination of people).
If you remove the cause of people becoming terrorists, the supply WILL dry up. If you can neutralize the ideological argument, either by accomodation or by some practical alternative, then it can't be used to draw new people to a {glory cause} based on it.
England ended the terrorism of the IRA by dealing with the causes of people becoming terrorists there.
Isreal hasn't done this (they two-step it, forward and back), nor has Botch in Iraq\Afghanistan, so continued {military} action creates more new terrorists than it kills: it's both {too blunt and indiscriminate} a weapon and it doesn't {solve} the problem.
Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2
