Defining Terrorism: Is There an Objective Definition?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Evo
(SNIP)[/color] But I can't agree with the unecesssary taking of lives. (SNoP)[/color]

Neither do 'they'...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by master_coda
What if they only struck at the Pentagon?

With a missile or a civilian airliner? Missile no, civilian airliner yes.

I think the World Trade Center towers are perfectly logical millitary targets.

How do you figure?

It is bizarre to see people on a science board arguing against the existence of an objective definition of something. With all the threads here on the Geneva Convention and the actions of the US military being under such a microscope, I have a hard time accepting that this thread even exists. Its such a contradiction.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
With a missile or a civilian airliner? Missile no, civilian airliner yes.
How do you figure?

It is bizarre to see people on a science board arguing against the existence of an objective definition of something. With all the threads here on the Geneva Convention and the actions of the US military being under such a microscope, I have a hard time accepting that this thread even exists. Its such a contradiction.

I guess you'll just have to learn to live with it, won't you?