I have spent much time in deep contemplation on the ethical nature of terrorism in the past, and have previously been forced to remain undecided - a rare thing, for me. But the recent attacks in London have thrust the matter back into my mental focus, and I find my reflexive reaction and my objective philosophical conclusion are now better aligned.

I have always been quick to condemn terrorism - as a knee-jerk response to something which disgusts me. But when I was confronted with articles on this very web site which seemed to take a different stance, I came to realize that my knee may not have been jerking logically. After all, it would seem that terrorism, as compared with other forms of warfare, is neither new nor particularly severe. Furthermore, the notion is often raised that the citizens of a democratic society are responsible for its actions, and therefore, there are no innocents in any conflict, and attacks on civilians are therefore as justifiable as attacks on soldiers. I have to confess here, despite my resolve to find a way to counter these ideas, I was almost taken in. So, I tabled the matter, unable to find a certain stance on either side of the fence...

... until now. And now it would seem that the counter-arguments are devastatingly simplistic, irrefuatbly correct, and readily apparent. I don't know where my head was at before, but it certainly isn't stuck there any longer. Allow me to begin:

1) The first thing that I would like to address is the notion that nobody is innocent. If innocence is what goes away when you begin voting and therefore taking responsibility for the actions of your democratically elected government - and the repercussions thereto - then there are in fact numerous innocents all around us. Firstly, infants and children are innocent. In fact, in Canada, anyone beneath the age of 18 is innocent. Nobody beneath voting age can be held responsible for the actions of government. Anyone to whom this is not obvious should not be taking part in something as intricate as a debate, lest they become confused and lose bladder control. Anyone who does not consider children to be relevant to discussions of this nature is lacking a compassion that is essential to the survival of our race, and I honestly believe they should be terminated for the good of mankind. Those slated for termination don't get to talk either. I know, I know, but forgive me my exaggerations and let the point stand: if you can't see the obvious nature of the matter, you ain't fit to be here.

Secondly, everyone else is innocent too, with the obvious exception of volunteering soldiers. Those people agree to accept responsibility for the actions of their nation, and to face the consequences head on. I don't believe in conscription; I think it as wrong as terrorism, so I'm not bringing that into the debate for now. That leaves us with voters. Are voters responsible? They've never accepted responsibility for the affairs of government before! Why should they start now? Seriously, though. In the recent debates encircling the gross misconduct of the Liberal party, has it not been apparent to everyone that there seem to be ZERO viable options for government? Honestly, who are we to choose? The people who will waste our money on false philosophy? The ones who will spend it on themselves? Or the ones who seek to control our lives, and plainly can't control even their own party? There is no good choice. Which means that the philosophical heart of democracy in Canada has been destroyed, and we are no longer responsible for what our governments do.

That last point could be argued, but it's dangerous to do so. Do you really want me to believe that Al Qaeda should be allowed to blow you up because you didn't throw down the chains of democracy and take charge of the country yourself? Because if you tell me that lack of options for democractic government does not excuse the responsibility of the voter, then that is what you're saying. I don't believe it to be true, and even if it is, there is still the matter that anyone who abstains from voting is not the slightest bit responsible for the actions of their nation. That one you can't refute.

2) Now that we've established that innocence is rampant in our nation, rather than being the fictitious commodity some think it to be, the only thing needed to show terrorism for being the ugly, illegitimate means of "warfare" that it truly is, would be the demonstration that involving innocent parties in your warfare against their will is immoral. This should not take long...

There is nothing wrong with rape.

Did that get your attention? Did it make you angry? I hope so, because it should have. There is indeed something very wrong with rape. How does rape differ from other types of sexual intercourse? The difference, of course, lies in consent. We accept that rape is a morally wrong action because it is done without the consent of all parties involved. This goes also for indiscriminate murder, muggings, bank robbery, destruction of property and all other crimes. Is terrorism really so special? So distinct and wonderful that it can stand proudly as the only thing people can do to exact their will on one another against the will of their victims without stepping outside the boundaries of proper, ethical behaviour? No, it is not, and to suggest otherwise is nothing more than a sign of stupidity, childishness, or faulty reasoning.

=======

On a somewhat related note, CFRB reported this morning that the London bombings were likely the work of a European terrorist organization that happens to be an Al Qaeda affiliate. What is this, a franchise operation now? Yes, speak to our local representative in your area for all your terrorist needs! The same great service world-wide since 1979!