(February 26, 2015 at 8:56 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: No, you're not getting it. And that's surprising because it's a pretty basic distinction, so much so that it's the law.
Yes, I get it, thank you very much. You're talking about a legal issue. But that's not in any way relevant for discussing international terrorism versus international military interventions.
And I wasn't appealing to emotions but to reason. Some posts ago I asked you what you would do if I accidentally - oops - shot your wife. That's the reason I'm talking about. Violence provokes hatred and that's the goal of terrorism. That's why comparing it to serial killers is missing the point by a long stretch. A serial killer commits his crimes because they give him satisfaction and a feeling of power. Terrorism is a strategy, despicable as it may be.
The point isn't if one act is more despicable than the other. The point is to analyse the underlying reasoning and to come up with some valid strategy to counter it. Even more so, since this whole conflict never did and never could follow the basic rules of war. There is no opposing army to take it out on a battlefield and there is no opposing government to negotiate terms. It's outside of everything in recent history.
Everything else is just, as I said before, jerking in front of a mirror.