Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
To begin with, let's leave nationality and religion out of this equation. Terrorism is obviously terrorism regardless what what religion or nationality someone is and what religion or nationality the victims are. I know it's difficult for you, but please try to give examples without including that.
In the above example, what if instead of a GPS-guided munition from an F-16, they used an over-the-shoulder rocket?
So let me use your example, but change just that:
An over-the-shoulder rocket lands in a facility believed to house military hardware, but instead it wipes out an innocent family taking shelter there.
Is that terrorism?
|
Nationality and religion were used in the context of what is going on currently in the Middle East. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yeah, I think you understand just fine, let's not play dumb. Yes, Palestinian forces firing on an Israeli military checkpoint or an armored convoy with the intent of killing Israeli soldiers only: not terrorism. If civilians are in the vicinity (unbeknownst to the Palestinian militants) and get killed in the crossfire, not terrorism. It ain't pretty. It doesn't make it fine. But it's not terrorism. It does not "terrorize", because civilians are not being intentionally and indiscriminately targeted. If civilians are being intentionally targeted, but NOT indiscriminately (i.e. specific non-combatants are targeted), that is murder. Morally reprehensible, but still not at the lowest and most depraved level of a terrorist attack. I'm trying to be even-handed and not assign nationality or religion to specific tactics. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that both strategically and tactically Hamas is a terrorist outfit in its heart and in its soul. And interestingly, I am sure they would not deny it. They relish the blowing to bits of innocent children and families. The more, the better. I never said all Palestinians are terrorists. That's just you throwing out the race card when you have no other card to play, typical ploy on your part.
To define something based solely on action and not on "thought" was a loaded and un-educated way for you to pose the question. All criminal jurisprudence is based on both action endpoint AS WELL AS the thought process and intent of the perpetrator. INTENT is the difference between 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter. It's also the difference between misdemeanor assault and aggravated assault.