Hello anh AiViet > I said that you cannot justify a terrorist or a hero >when you neglect their purpose. > ... > It is impossible to justify based solely on the act. Sure, you can't justify a an action if you neglect its purpose. But are we asking whether an act is *justified* or are we asking whether an act is *terrorism*? I think the 2 questions are not the same, and the answer to them are not the same. > One certain thing I could say is that if you don't have any >well-defined purpose Define "well-defined" :-). > and/or the purpose you want to pursue never >wins power, you are a terrorist. Define "never". In particular, suppose I tried to do something and failed and later on someone else tried to do something "similar" and succeeded. Where do you draw the line between I-never-won and I-eventually-won? >PS: But as a matter of fact to be able to win you should have some >good purpose, except when you won by luck. But in that case your >power will have short life. Define "short". Furthermore, the PS is such an idealistic statement. Unless, of course, you defined "good purpose" as that purpose which leads to power that has "long" life. Huy PS Was Be^' Va<n -Da`n the Vietminh soldier who acted as a tripod for a machine gun? If so then you are wrong, I had no intention to shoot anyone.
The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author.
The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.