I suppose that depends on how and where the decision to commit each of these acts was taken, and whether acts of terrorism are common practice in each of the organisation.
So that only narrows it down to every government that's engaged in warfare.
That is not the intent; the intent is to prevent a terrorist from carrying out a planned or partially executed act of terrorism. To authorize such a strike, senior brass and their legal advisers must be presented with...
The difference being the intent behind the 2 acts. Hamas' rockets are fired with the intent of terrorizing the Israeli population. A strike on a militant is intended to prevent future bloodshed.
By your logic, someone causing death by negligence is a terrorist.
We've this reality TV show called "born to dance" (you can guess what it's about), your comment could give birth to a whole new class of conspiracy celebrity gossip. :eek:
It's from http://www.memritv.org/", their translations are usually accurate.
Another story befitting the title (alas, no video): http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/956334.html"
This happened after the Attorney General gave the go-ahead to same-sex couples' adoption requests.
What do you make of the House of Lords? It seems somewhat outdated - hereditary peers, official clergymen, judicial functions... A kind of King's Court.
I understand it is in the process of being reformed.