| Pete Dashwood 2006-05-16, 7:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:452h621m8qhm9kfmq5tbk3p9fqd4b2dsti@
4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 02:28:44 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> But not against men?
OK, against the weak and defenceless... (this isn't quite the same. There is
an idea I had instilled in me that women and children should be protected
and nurtured. Old-fashioned, I know, but I adhere to it...)
>
>
> Why do we have to define whether it is terrorism? Nowadays every
> war has the other side defined as "terrorists", with some
> justification. It is the new "in" word. The enemy combatants are
> still called cowards, even as they do brave things.
>
"Brave things" like leaving a parcel in a crowded pub and killing and
maiming teenagers who are enjoying a quiet Sunday drink? "Brave things"
like flying aircraft into buildings, in the certain knowledge of going to
Heaven? Or, machine gunning school children in the furtherance of a
political cause?
Sorry Howard, I know who the terrorists are, and I don't need some American
politician to decide for me.
I lived in London while it was under attack from such people; they call
themselves 'soldiers' but it is an affront to anyone who has ever been a
soldier. Soldiers don't murder innocent civilians (or even enemy who have
laid down their weapons).
I'd be perfectly happy to see such people put against a wall and shot like
the 'soldiers' they claim to be.
> If someone murders innocent people by acts of greed, or acts of war,
> or acts of terrorism, the result is the same, so why make the
> distinction when picking punishments?
>
For the same reason that we make a distinction between someone stealing food
from a supermarket and someone stealing cash from the same supermarket.
Because the Law is required to consider the whole picture and temper justice
with mercy.
Except for terrorism... :-)
Pete.
|