No problem... Where I draw the line between terrorism and freedom fighting is when terrorists directly target innocent civilians.
Interesting, Hawk, you may be surprised that I agree with this post, though it may well mean that you intended to disagree with me.
I have no problem calling terrorism what you call terrorism in that post. I think the difference between us is whether the US has some right/obligation/responsibility/wisdom to end all that terrorism. I think that begins and ends with the global terrorism linked to 9-11. For the moment, in my mind at least, that's limited to Al Q. The breadth of the definition of Al Q might be debated but I won't go there.
I don't see the US as having any legitimate role in regional conflicts, in civil wars, etc. unless other dimensions come into play such as ethnic cleansing or flagrant human rights abuses. Perhaps national interest such as a regional ME conflict which threatens all the oil supply from there with no other major sources available.
Hmm, so I see four grounds for US involvement--self defense (Al Q), a narrowly circumscribed national interest argument, ethnic cleansing, human rights abuse (not all cases of the above but the presence of the case gives the US reason to consider taking some sort of action).
But I don't see the presence of something called terrorism as a reason.
Oh, and one more disclaimer, I also feel that the US, as we've discussed on this thread, has itself been guilty of attacks on innocent civilians (terrorism) in the bombing of German and Japanese cities in WWII.
I say this last just to note the space from which I type; I definitely don't ask for your agreement; and I don't see any reason to rehash those thread discussions.
Have a good day. |
