|
Very long running, low intensity war in highly-concentrated population areas. Terrorists/freedom fighters vs State. Terrorists bomb and terrorise continuously for 30+ years.
Should the state intervene to slaughter 600+ and injure thousands in a few fleeting days?
Should you stand behind the obvious need of the state to defend its citizens?
I'm truly glad you were 100% behind the UK in its actions in Northern Ireland.
Bloody Sunday anyone? 27 deaths, a stain on the UK in perpetuity and caused one thing only: Escalation.
Terrorism IS a state-scale nuisance, you deal with it in law enforcement and political/diplomatic arenas. Always.
If you want something comparable, look at road deaths... they're so much higher per year, every year, it's not funny.
To respond to state-scale nuisance with state-scale slaughter is disgusting. To do it 6 weeks before an election in a state were the ruling parties are trailing... that's criminal.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
|