I have a feeling this thread will generate some heat so here goes. I think that there are a few parralles between sheridan destroying the city on zahadum and the terrorist stike against New York.
First both the United States and the Shadows bring chaos to the world and support governements that further there control. ie. Us support or military dictators and Shadow support for the Centary
Second, both attack with a plane of sorts and both expected to die as a result.
Third, they both struck non military targets and killed non combatants, assuming the shadows make a distinction.
Forth, both thought the attac would bring the conflict home and stop the actions of the attacked.
Fifth, both were guests of the country attacked. The terrorists were here legaly and working in this country and sheridan was invited to join the shadows.
Sixth, both felt the actions of the other justified the ends.
I know that there are some diffrences namly that one is real and the other is created. But I think that sheridans attack seems better because we agree with what he was trying to do, namly bring peace to the galxy. The terrorists seem to be trying to not only stop imperialism but also bring there totalitarian brand of Islam in to more areas. However if we justify attacking civilians with WMD for our own ends then it becomes just another tool of war and the only tagety is that we lost a battle, not that a crime against humanity was commited. Pardon my rambling and let me know what you think.
------------------
Scott Gifford
Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures
First both the United States and the Shadows bring chaos to the world and support governements that further there control. ie. Us support or military dictators and Shadow support for the Centary
Second, both attack with a plane of sorts and both expected to die as a result.
Third, they both struck non military targets and killed non combatants, assuming the shadows make a distinction.
Forth, both thought the attac would bring the conflict home and stop the actions of the attacked.
Fifth, both were guests of the country attacked. The terrorists were here legaly and working in this country and sheridan was invited to join the shadows.
Sixth, both felt the actions of the other justified the ends.
I know that there are some diffrences namly that one is real and the other is created. But I think that sheridans attack seems better because we agree with what he was trying to do, namly bring peace to the galxy. The terrorists seem to be trying to not only stop imperialism but also bring there totalitarian brand of Islam in to more areas. However if we justify attacking civilians with WMD for our own ends then it becomes just another tool of war and the only tagety is that we lost a battle, not that a crime against humanity was commited. Pardon my rambling and let me know what you think.
------------------
Scott Gifford
Please pardon the spelling errors, grammer errors and various sarcastic overtures