Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708
You aren't fighting for a legitmate cause any rational person could support when you send women out to blow themselves up killing people riding to or from work who have no way to control whats going on in the region where the fighting takes place.
|
I'm actually writing a paper on this aspect of terrorism right now.
And it is rational, most who support the causes are rational, the use of female suicide bombers is rational and the targeting of noncombatants is rational. It might not be moral, but the immorality of killing innocent people can easily be made moral.
Their cause is also legitimate: freedom from what they view as oppression. It may not be legitimate from where you stand, but in order to effectively combat terrorism (meaning come up with a solution or improvements) you cannot look at the terrorist's actions from your perspective alone. You have to recognize that there are legitimate grievances and if you wipe out one group of terrorists, another will likely develop because the original issues were not addressed.
I'd also like to point out that our military has done far worse things than the Chechen terrorists have, but the difference between that and terrorism is that the United States is a state actor. The term for this sort of action would be
state terror, as opposed to
terrorism. That's a bit of a digression but Zhukov mentioned something like this.
Threaded Mode