If I sold/gave you a knife knowing that you intended to murder one Andrew Holgate or Staffordshire, and then you travelled to Staffordshire whereupon you dispatched one dinosaur disillusionist, would I be prosecuted as an accomplice/co-conspirator?
(Because if so, you're not having it)
>>While it'll no doubt be unpopular I'd argue that terrorism is the 'legitimate' (in a certain sense) response to 'illegal' warlike acts.
I'd have to agree with that.
And also disagree with the notion that it's in anyway less 'honourable' to be a terrorist than a sodjer.
A terrorist organisation is, by definition, a group with far less power and resource than a national army, so of course they'll turn to guerilla tictacs (they're the Camo coloured ones) and 'soft targets' to maximise the impact of what they /do/ have.
By which I'm not saying I think terrorists are honourable, but rather that armies are not (unless in existence purely for defence and never ever used for first-strike/agression/securing oil reserves. More a peoples millitia than an army, really).
The Libyan government where and arguably still are a bunch of bastards, but if the people who paid for and planted the bombs are allowed to walk free it doesn't leave any justification for this case beyond exploited or poorly targeted grief.
In my opinion they should be busy badgering the government for an explaination of why Libya are being brought in from the cold but still get to act like dicks.
Bearing in mind that I don't find any form of warfare (except revolution :C ) honourable, I don't find targeting civilians necessarily less honourable than other tactics.
Asuming the civilians are from the nation/state that is presumably abusing it's power to subjugate or oppress another (the basis for most terrorism), then there is a legitamate argument that those civilians, as the electorate, are as responsible as the Government or army of that nation.
>>But yeah, there is, I think, a difference between fighting amongst those who have voluntarily put their life on the line for a particular cause and something more 'asymmetric'. Like the difference between a fight and a mugging.
I'm not sure that the fight/mugging thing really scales to conflict on this sort of level tbh. But fair enough, I take the point.
But what of conscription, a practice still used in many countries (including Truffy's Switzerland, although that's a bit different again)?
Its not really something I've put a great deal of thought into, but it just seems fairer and more honourable (note, not necessarily reaching the status of 'honourable', just moreso) to attack someone who has the capacity to defend themselves rather than 'innocent' civilians.
If there really is an intent to attack or punish the populace, then they should at least be warned that war has been declared.
Then again, the terrorists would probably counter that by saying that the people imprisoned/killed/etc weren't given any warnings, so in actual fact they're being perfectly fair, so I dunno!
>nothing honourable about targetting civilians rather than military centres
Yet everyone does it. Bar none.