Subject | Re:The British Secret Service...[was Re: Republicanism still an offence in Eng |
From | T.T. Arvind |
Date | 2002-04-28 23:29 (2002-04-28 22:29) |
Message-ID | <aahpjh$k51$1@cpca7.uea.ac.uk> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
Follows | Russ |
Followups | Russ (1d, 3h & 13m) > T.T. Arvind Russ (1d, 18h & 48m) > T.T. Arvind |
RussIn law, yes. There are, however, many who would condemn the army's acts as criminal on moral grounds, even if our positions would not be stricly justified in international law. The same goes for the non-terrorist group - by engaging in terrorist acts, they sully their cause and their ability to morally justify their struggle.
I have yet to see your definition of 'terrorism' and 'terrorist group.' A non-terrorist group in a just war can commit individual terrorist acts without thereby becoming a terrorist group (i.e. French Resistance). Just as the army of a nation-state in a just war can commit immoral, unjust or criminal acts in a war without thereby becoming a criminal army (i.e. RAF Bomber Command).
I'm curious about one thing. I am sure you heard about the conference of Islamic states in which they refused to find a definition of terrorism and refused to condemn suicide bombers as terrorists. What are your thoughts on that?The conference was divided on this - it was, ultimately, the west Asian countries who refused to condemn the Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists and, since there are more of them, they prevailed. Their argument was very similar to that advanced in support of the IRA. Other Muslim-dominated countries - such as Malaysia and Bosnia - were more than willing to equally condemn Israel and the Palestinians.
I find it interesting that to the best of my knowledge, I've been killfiled by two people: you and Marty Michaelovich.Oh, don't feel so bad - I'm sure there're more who don't air their killfiles so publically. ;-P