Originally Posted by horatio
if my family/country/planet was threatened I wouldn't hesitate to torture and kill either.
I say screw tolerance, nobody needs to tolerate his enemy.
Unless your Spock and decide you don't want to save the person who destroyed you're entire planet and was threatening another deliberately, of course.
What about the terrorists who founded the US aka founding fathers? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Don't get me wrong, I don't condone the 9/11 criminals, on the contrary mass murderers are mass murderers. This case is crystal clear, these terrorists suck.
But if you take a look at Palestine or Northern Irish terrorists the waters become a bit muddy.
Or take dissidents in a tolaritarian regime, they are labeled terrorists by the ruling nazis/communists/autocrats. This case is crystal clear, these terrorists rule.
So I think that the term terrorist is too broad to be useful.
This is part of the problem to a great degree - definition and perception of who or what actually 'is' a terrorist.
To the British in the 1700s the revolutionary American colonists could easily be termed as such in todays terms, yet from the Colonists side they were merely taking a stand against their distant rulers.
For every relatively clear case - there is a distinctly muddy one.