well ... I think it's simple really ... the side that'll take
into consideration "collateral damages" and take pains to avoid
civilian casualties has the legitimacy ... the side that
indiscriminately (or rather, deliberately) target women and
children should be labelled terrorists ? .....
of course, it's all a bit blurry really, I remember this malaysian
staff officer casually talking about poisoning Singapore's water
supply in the advent of war with us ... it was reported by
newspapers on both sides of the causeway ....
what I cannot get is why some countries are held to a different
standards than others ? .... when the americans or brits or other
allied troops bomb the wrong place or some soldiers under severe
combat "offs" some terrorists, the whole world cries foul ... but
hey, when some fanatics launch rockets against civilians, drive a
couple of planes into buildings, or bomb a few trains or buses, or
slowly slice off people's heads on camera .... hey, no problem,
they are terrorists, it's what they do ! ...
double standards of course, but hey, it's what separates the
civilised people and the barbarians eh .....
