it seems to me that there is some grouping of different violent acts / groups that may make the argument difficult to analyze. it would seem that lumping in 'suiciders/homicide bombers' in with
all 'terrorist' actions as though it is the only type of action representative of such groups makes the positions difficult to separate. personally, i can't support or 'justify' those types of actions; i think they are 'wrong' and in fact, frequently counterproductive. but that's not to say that
all violent acts committed by typically disadvantaged, militarily outclassed people can be condemned, at least to my mind. as
roach stated: i think it depends who they are, why they are doing what they are doing, and how they go about it.
the particulars of the israeli / palestinian conflict get a little hairy, to mind; there is so much hatred between some portions of those populations, so much history to it, and so many different factions involved that i think its easy to simply generalize all involved as being unethical. that's a whole different can of worms - perhaps a detailed thread discussion of terrorism in that context would make more sense. taking it as a general example, however, and calling it representative of all 'terrorist' groups is dangerous. i mean, look at our own founding fathers, so to speak. not the part with the native americans; the part with the british
