Quote:
|
And right now those guided bombs are killing Lebanese civilians, and the legal acts of war have been killing Palestinian civilians and rendering them homeless for who knows how long. Whether an act during a conflict intentionally targets the innocent or not doesn't make those casualties any less dead, or their surviving families any less grieving, or their cries for justice any quieter. The problem is that people on both side of the conflict suffer loss and think that the solution is to retaliate.
|
Yes, but there's a difference between manslaughter, murder 2, and murder 1. The outcome is the same, but the purpose of them differ drastically and thus so does punishment.
As for you Roach, I have a better question for you other than arguing the semantics of the definition of terrorism. If a person had a dog whom he refused to leash. The dog on an almost daily basis attack and kill kids within the neighborhood.
Would the people within the neighborhood be right in putting the blame on the owner?
Would they have a right of self defense to break into the owner's backyard and restrain or kill the dog? Remember, the police or animal control (UN) wont help. They suggest sitting down and talking to the owner, though he repeatedly refuses and very often leave the talks before the conclusion in protest.
And finally would you hold the parents to legal punishment for the incursion into the owner's territory to end the attacks?