4 ms·
Obviously you would think your definition is the “reasonable” one. Until you find yourself having to engage in terro^H^H^H^H^H freedom fighting to achieve your
by ukj 6y ago
Obviously you would think your definition is the “reasonable” one.
Until you find yourself having to engage in terro^H^H^H^H^H freedom fighting to achieve your own political goals.
- JohnStrangeII 6y agoI agree, what you describe is what terrorists think. Obviously, at some point in their life they persuade themselves that their political goals justify the intentional killing of innocent civilians. They go at great lengths with these justifications precisely because they are so obviously flawed. Attempts to justify their actions involve a mix of denying the Doctrine of Double Effects, speaking of necessary sacrifices, and of portraying innocent victims as guilty collaborators.
- ukj 6y agoIt's exactly what you are doing right now. Denying the Doctrine of Double Effects. Attempting to justify your definition. Portraying freedom fighters as terrorists. Ultimately insisting that your perspective/definition is the 'correct' one. You've gone to great lengths with these justifications perhaps because they are so obviously flawed?