Bus bombed in southeast Iran, 18 dead: IRNA

Reuters ^ | February 14, 2007

[TeenagedConservative]

Just out of curiosity, would you support "terrorism" if all the victims deserved it?

[UKrepublican]

So al sadr goes to iran, and one day later this happens.

Coincidence?

Shame he wasn't taking the bus today.

[Sword_Svalbardt]

Roger that!

[shield]

We're just hearing of this....I'd not be surprised if this hasn't been happening for quite a while...we've just not heard of it. Al Reuters is reporting this trying to point fingers as the bad ole' USA..........

[induk]

Hi I read somewhere here at FR that there might have been some link to Saudi Arabia. Has anyone got a link to that?
Thanks

[elfman2]

“Just out of curiosity, would you support "terrorism" if all the victims deserved it?”

Terrorist generally insist their victims deserve it, just for being part of an immoral democracy that elected their enemy. That’s not the definitive characteristic that makes terrorism evil.

It’s evil because they’re employing the most extreme cruelty possible to achieve their goals, one that’s incompatible with civilization, and they exist solely and parasitically because we don’t respond in kind with our greatest level of cruelty possible. Terrorism is evil because of the mechanism, not the motivations. The mechanism disproportionately rewards the most heartless, cruel, barbaric and ruthless side, and therefore promotes a degeneration of civilization.

[Cindy]

Welcome to FreeRepublic.com induk.

I have not heard or read of any Saudi link.

You might try Google and research it there.

[fishergirl]

AND it apparently wasn't a wedding party.

[TeenagedConservative]

Terrorism is evil because of the mechanism, not the motivations.

So you would assert that terrorism that results exclusively in the deaths of enemy military personnel (not saying that's what this was, just making a hypothetical example) is still wrong? You used the word "evil," which implies immorality, which needs a moral standard. What is the moral standard here if it's not that all killing is evil? I assume you are no pacifist, so I challenge you to draw the moral line and back it up.

We won the Revolutionary War with terrorism.

[M. Espinola]

The offical terrorist controlled Iranian Islamic press reported "The bomb was hidden in a car by "armed rebels and attackers" and exploded as the bus, belonging to the ground forces of Iran's Revolutionary Guards,.."

That's really something considering the 'Revolutionary Guards' are the so-called elite Mahdi obsessed arch-Shi'ite terrorists who train Shi'ite Hezballah death cultists to murder the Christians of Lebanon and even Sunni Muslims. These 'Revolutionary Guards' also 'advise' Hamas on which rockets fired from terrorist infested Gaza will slaughter the most Israelis while they are sleeping at 3am. Murdering Jewish babies in their cribs gives the Hamas killers extra Islamic brownie points with the moon god. Iran's terrorist promoting 'Revolutionary Guards' even popped up in Bosnia during the Yugoslav ethnic wars of the 1990's.

Reciprocity for Iran's ruling Muslim despots is only a cruise missile away.

[elfman2]

Although the definition of terrorism varies, few would recognize it where it resulted “exclusively in the deaths of enemy military personnel”. If they make that claim, they’re misusing the term.

A precise definition of evil must be based on one’s ideology. The lowest common denominator which can perhaps be agreed upon among various theist and atheistic ideologies is that which is destructive to human life. War can be evil because of the motives or because of the methods. Pursuing a war through terrorism is like pursuing a lover through kidnapping. No long term good can come of such socially destructive methods. Both in principle are ultimately destructive to human life.

We won the revolutionary war attacking British troops, not civilians – at least not as a primary strategy. Whoever gave you that idea was confusing guerilla warfare with terrorism.