Book any holiday with lastminute.com through this link and Mansized gets up to 7% of sales. Every order you place helps us build more great stuff for you
I agree but at the same time.. what's the definition of "terrorism"? For all we know, the guy probably sees Iraq war, regular acts committed by Isreal, etc. as terrorism.
Regardless of what you define as terrorism, the military campaign targets soliders- not innocent victims.
If they have a problem with the war- attack Downing Street, The Pentagon, Thw WhiteHouse.
I agree but at the same time.. what's the definition of "terrorism"? For all we know, the guy probably sees Iraq war, regular acts committed by Isreal, etc. as terrorism.
Regardless of what you define as terrorism, the military campaign targets soliders- not innocent victims.
If they have a problem with the war- attack Downing Street, The Pentagon, Thw WhiteHouse.
Not The tube, buses, Glasgow Airport etc.
Agreed - it is better to hurt the government than the public as the public had nothing to do with the war (the public did oppose the war in the first place!).
Although, we could say the same thing, the favourite term frequently used: "collotoral damage".
Whether we like it or not, we are ALL stuck in this mess.
I don't disgaree with your views, but only after they've been found guilty.
Before that point, you're asking someone (doctor, police officer, whoever) to act as judge, jury and executioner.
I think driving a burning vehicle packed with explosives is evidence enoug he wasn't on his way to Paris for the weekend.
Or he was trying to convince his friend not to go through with it, there was an accident and evryone caught fire, he was fighting with the policeman to get to the 'bomb' to disarm it.
Now I'm not saying that one version isn't far less likely than the other, but the point is valid. Until you know exactly what happened, which occurs through the court and prosecution system, you cannot say 100% that he was guilty and didn't deserve treatment.
The claims that because he did not receive a trial, and therefore can still be presumed innocent is a little naive.
The same could be said then of Thomas Hamilton, who gunned down twenty or so primary school children in Dunblane, before killing himself.
The guy drove a burning, petrol soaked car into an airport terminal, himself soaked in petrol. Hardly the act of an innocent bystander.
How he is treated in hospital is a different matter. How we treat the sick and the dead is the mark of a civilised society. If we were to consider witholding treatment, then we would be no better than the savages who are trying to destroy our way of life.
