Walzer's View On Terrorism
Yes, I to agree that "the failures of the dominant view of terrorism should lead us to adopt either a more critical attitude toward conventional war or a less condemnatory attitude toward terrorism." My stance is a more critical attitude toward war, in fact more critical thinking in general.
Terrorism is defined in more ways than one, it can also be used in a variety of ways.
Michael Walzer "considers the moral justification for terrorism and finds such activity not permissible." Lionel K. McPherson even "argues that terrorism like war, can be justifiable despite the harm it does to noncombatants"
After reading both chapters twenty nine and thirty, containing many valuable points; I've adopted both critical attitude toward conventional
Terrorism is defined in more ways than one, it can also be used in a variety of ways.
Michael Walzer "considers the moral justification for terrorism and finds such activity not permissible." Lionel K. McPherson even "argues that terrorism like war, can be justifiable despite the harm it does to noncombatants"
After reading both chapters twenty nine and thirty, containing many valuable points; I've adopted both critical attitude toward conventional