And there's the point of this entire thread. Despite the restraint on the
side of Israel and the lack of it on the side of the Palestinians, the moral
justification is being skewed by news agencies by their use of language.
A terrorist is a bad guy, a militant can be seen as a good guy. Blow up
innocents in Israel, your not a bad guy (terrorist). Blow up innocents in
Spain, your a bad guy (terrorist). Terrorist is a word loaded with moral
justification and the news agencies are playing arbitrator of who is moral
or not.

> While I understand the "win by any means" mindset (it was how I too was
> taught), I think restraint gives credence to moral justification for the
> violence in the first place. It is what is refered to as "honor on the
> battlefield".
>
> Is it better to die with honor or to win? And what is winning?
>
> -Kevin
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]

Reply via email to