The whole terrorism thing is essentially a ‘game’ between the authorities and the self-perceived cause-warriors, with the general public being pulled in as collateral damage (both as direct victims and, more broadly, as the losers of individual and social freedoms). The people, acting in their own self-interest, should refuse to let this sick, manufactured drama continue and that means refusing both sides their roles (as ‘terrorists’ or ‘defenders from terrorism’).
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/justice/supreme-court-poisoned...
The article argues explicitly against that reasoning, for the record:
> After all, in a government or other large social community there exists among the top officials, civilian and military, together with their financial and industrial collaborators, a kind of over-all working arrangement which may always be looked upon, if its invidious connotation be disregarded, as a "conspiracy." That is, government implies "breathing together." And is everyone who, knowing the purposes of the party in power, participates in government or joins with officials to be held for every act of the government?
> To take a case which is perhaps not so obvious, is everyone who joins a political party, even one with some illegal purposes, to be held liable to the world for the action that every member takes, even if that action is not declared in the party platform and was not known to or consented to by the person charged as a wrongdoer? To put upon any individual such responsibility for action of the group seems literally to step back in history to a point before the prophet Ezekiel and to reject the more recent religious and democratic teachings that guilt is personal.
You can't do this here. Please comment civilly or not at all.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
========== If the Nuremberg trial of the leading Nazis should never have been undertaken, it does not follow that we should not have punished these men. It would have been consistent with our philosophy and our law to have disposed of such of the defendants as were in the ordinary sense murderers by individual, routine, undramatic, military trials. This was the course proposed in the speeches of the Archbishop of York, Viscount Cecil, Lord Wright, and others in the great debate of March 20, 1945, in the House of Lords. In such trials the evidence and the legal issues would have a stark simplicity and the lesson would be inescapable. ==========
This exactly what Norway did to Breivik, he was treated as the common murderer that he is. No new law, no new tribunal, no grandstanding by the accused or the accusers.