We just had axe murderers in a kindergarten in southern Russian
No, we didn't have axe murders, we had terrorists, particularly heinous terrorists, or so it would seem.
Perhaps we're having a terminology problem. I was using "axe murderer" to CONTRAST the garden-variety, vicious spree or serial killer from the terrorist killer. Their purposes are different. In the former case, the killings are absolutely meaningless--the manifestation of pure evil. In the second case the killings have political purpose. We may not agree with that purpose or that the purpose justifies such a vile act, but there is political purpose. Perhaps you are using "axe murderer" to signify simply the vileness of the killing while to me it's a tactic. If so, then we are using the terms differently thus talking about two different things.
surely those who don't give little children food or water for 3 days then blow them up and shoot them in the back as they flee are the same as axe murderers
In that case, the terrorists are clearly the moral equivalent of axe murderers, IMO. They are not, however, the same. Axe murders murder to murder. Terrorists murder to terrorize for political gain. (I am assuming that was the purpose in that case.)
If the civilized world is not able to define ANYTHING as absolutely barbaric, how can the civilized world defend itself from encroaching barbarism?
I have no problem with categorizing the incident in Russia as "absolutely barbaric." I've already stated my criteria for potentially acceptable terrorism. I already stipulated that targeting little kids was especially horrid. For that reason, that event in Russia for me is the worst example of terrorism I can remember.
I also said that I disapproved of the intifada variety of terrorism. And implied that US domestic terrorism was unacceptable. The question I thought we were discussing was whether terrorism is absolutely barbaric. That means terrorism in all its manifestations. I'm not sure that that is the case.
how can the civilized world defend itself from encroaching barbarism?
The establishment has power. The establishment always sets up rules to protect itself from encroachments. Power and civilization (antonym of barbarity) are not necessarily the same. The examples I gave you were of our civilization, the one in which you and I are happy participants, being crushed. I mentioned commies, Centaurians, and Islamicists. I questioned whether we should appropriately be squeamish about using terrorism to fight off the death of our civilization. If terrorism is, indeed, acceptable to fight off the demise of our beloved civilization, then terrorism can not be absolutely barbaric. |
