Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Clinton would distinguish between 'good' terrorists and 'bad' terrorists

Here's another reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton. This is from an interview with her published today in the British daily al-Guardian:

Yeah. Do you think that the terrorists hate us for our freedoms, or do you think they have specific geopolitical objectives?

Well, I believe that terrorism is a tool that has been utilized throughout history to achieve certain objectives. Some have been ideological, others territorial. There are personality-driven terroristic objectives. The bottom line is, you can't lump all terrorists together. And I think we've got to do a much better job of clarifying what are the motivations, the raisons d'ĂȘtre of terrorists. I mean, what the Tamil Tigers are fighting for in Sri Lanka, or the Basque separatists in Spain, or the insurgents in al-Anbar province may only be connected by tactics. They may not share all that much in terms of what is the philosophical or ideological underpinning. And I think one of our mistakes has been painting with such a broad brush, which has not been particularly helpful in understanding what it is we were up against when it comes to those who pursue terrorism for whichever ends they're seeking.

It sounds like you're saying it's not particularly useful when Bush and others say terrorists hate us for our freedoms?

Well, some do. But is that a diagnosis? I don't think it's proven to be an effective one.

In other words, if they're a 'liberation movement' they can't be 'terrorists'? Kind of like the 'Palestinians'? Been there and done that thanks.
A "Terrorist" is someone who intentionally perpetrates, or causes or directs someone else to perpetrate, a violent attack against others with the intention of killing or maiming random non-combatants or destroying their property.

Note what's missing here: It doesn't matter what the goal is.
Think about it.


Post a Comment

<< Home