今天无聊中看了一下国内几个门户网站如新浪，搜狐等网友对本拉登死的评论，毛骨耸然，不由的感慨经过几十年长期不变的宣传扭曲的教育，很多国内的中国人已经丧失了起码的道德伦理是非
- 主题发起人 salas88
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2004-06-13
- 消息
- 1,318
- 荣誉分数
- 119
- 声望点数
- 223
- 注册
- 2010-05-13
- 消息
- 3,121
- 荣誉分数
- 56
- 声望点数
- 0
The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations.[40] These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.[41] Those labeled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, patriot, or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties in a conflict to describe each other as terrorists.[42]
On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing civilians, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism".[43] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".[43][44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing civilians, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism".[43] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".[43][44]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
中国与现代社会几乎是格格不入是 - 韬光养晦，现在的世界是靠实力吃饭的，中国需要的是对外的战争。
- 注册
- 2010-02-15
- 消息
- 1,225
- 荣誉分数
- 144
- 声望点数
- 73
what make them terrorists?
why do they want to become terrorists?
why do they want to kill themselves in the the process?
Good questions:
'what make them terrorists?' Because they blame everything on the Americans.
'why do they want to become terrorists?' Many of them got brainwashed. On top there are a few twisted minds who may be well educated but demented.
"why do they want to kill themselves in the the process?' 99 virgins in heaven?
