Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
Completely. It was vital to Pres. Clinton to characterize the action as "terrorism" so that it could be pursued/addressed as a criminal action by individuals and not as an act of war. I disagree completely with that attitude. Regrettably, it only takes one side to "declare" a war. Refusing to deal with military aggression as such is inaccurate at best.
Agreed



I never said I wouldn't have a problem with it. I said it wasn't terrorism. I actually dislike a lot of the stuff that gets done. I'm an old-fashioned enough type to wish they'd declare war and deal with it on the up-and-up, though I am well aware that it won't happen. Nobody declares war anymore, they just shoot and spin it in the media after shooting.
These kind of things have been going on forever though. All out war isn't always your best option. I would argue that killing scientists is an act of terrorism. I would be scared if tommorow I found my chem professor killed by Costa Ricans

All too often. I prefer Locke's approach to the Social Contract, though anyone who dismisses Hobbes outright is missing the boat.
The one who sees thing from afar can always afford to be an idealist.