There were a couple of assumptions I had of course ...
That's fine, I just perfer assumptions be made clear so they don't hinder the conservation at any point in time.
These acts were all aimed at killing and of course it has to be intentional. So coming up with accidental is unnecessary.
Well I can't really speak for the people's intentions (For any of the events labeled Terrorism) who performed the events. But it certainly is possible that their attacks were not intended to kill anyone. If their actions did result in the loss or injury of life it would be collateral damage under the circumstance that it wasn't intended. If the Terrorists would have been perfectly happy with an vacant target (Without innocent people) and it wasn't there intention to kill them, it would simple terrorism (Even if they realize people will be there. Although I would say that a vacant target should be perferred, but even in Offical "Wars" civilians are killed due to collateral damage, and of course the military knows they are there, but the war rages on).
On the other hand it might be possible certain events were carried out specifically to result in loss or injury to life, which would be immoral without question.
For instance let's say I am upset with Fedex for some reason. I decide I'm going to place a stink bomb in one of the places where innocent people are present and place it. I could have two intentions:
1. Target the people
2. Target Fedex
If I'm targeting the people my action would be immoral (Assuming the people there are not the people that caused my original reason for doing so, i.e. Innocent). Therefore my intention should be to target Fedex as a company, in this case I might be trying to cause them to lose business. But what about the people inside that smelt the horrible order from the stink bomb? There are two important questions:
1. Am I morally responsible for every person I harm by my stink bomb that I didn't intend to harm?
2. Is it immoral to use a target inwhich you realize innocent people will be present, even if your intent is not to direct harm towards them?
These questions are hard questions to answer for certain. But letme ask:
Alot of us drive Cars, yes? The fuel we burn in our cars become toxic fumes that damage the enivornment for one and can even be damaging to the health of civilians and citizens depending on the situtation and magnitude. So am I then being immoral for driving a car because I am harming people and other beings which I didn't intend to harm? Should I be held accountable morally speaking for all the unknown and unintended damages I have caused?
I wouldn't think so. It doesn't seem the following premise:
"ANY HARM TO INNOCENT LIFE IS IMMORAL" holds as a valid premise (Therefore suggesting the answers to the above difficult questions). There seems to have to be intention.
The point is rather: Are they targeting the people? Or are they targeting something else? (Say a building? Or maybe they have no specific target?)
So you define Simple Terrorism as an act not intended to kill or harm? Well, I agree but I think we have to qualify 'intention' to include the aviodance of the act if there is even a remote possibility that life is endangered.
If that's the case, I wouldn't even consider that terrorism ... heck, that's just vandalism! hahahaha
Just because it isn't intended to result in no harm or death doesn't mean the action performed isn't capable of resulting in harm or death.
Yet you mention the following :
"I think we have to qualify 'intention' to include the aviodance of the act if there is even a remote possibility that life is endangered."
This statement could go back to the car example. I could go even as far as to say that many people die every year because of car accidents/wrecks. This would present a "Remote possiblity" (Actually there is a pretty good possiblity that most everyone will be involved in a car wreck and death can be a result) that life will be endangered. So should we stop driving cars? Should everyone get off their lazy butts and walk/run/bike everywhere?
According to your statement above I would generate a premise like the following: "An action should not be performed if the result has even a remote possibilty of resulting in life endangerment"
You might object and say "This statement only applies to terrorism!!" But I would implore you then to explain why this statement should only be applied to terrorism and by what distinction do you place terrrorism and other actions into two categories judged by seperate premises.
Well, it's good that you consider Complex Terrorism immoral. Does Islam say that is OK?
I'm guessing ... NO.
Correct, Complex terrorism isn't supported by Islam. Intentional killing of innocence is forbidden.
The problem is, the world is seeing too many Islamic extremists, and it's giving the true Muslims a terrible rep.
True, and that is one reason why I go around the web attempting to state truths where I find falsehood being stated. (i.e. Striving in the Cause of Allah). For me what I do here is
Jihad, which might strike some people as odd because of the connatation they associate with this word.
I'm afraid that the only way to combat ignorance and generalizations of Islam is to get out there and present information. There are alot of good Muslims, but why would the News even consider putting such things in their programs. They are going to go for what people want to see : Death,drugs,sexual offenses,criminals captured,war details, etc. The stories that catch people's attention.
peace
view on Aishas age can be found at
view on Aishas age can be found at
have you proven those died were terrorists or human kind?
I would expect an argument like this from an atheist, but a Christian? I'm appauled 
Not someone I would necessarily trust since for him all morality is happens to be a gut feeling based relative to one's time, culture, and upbringing.
