Here are the headline and the first paragraph from the BBC’s coverage:
Suicide bomber hits Afghan base
A suicide car bomber has attacked an Italian peacekeeper base in the Afghan city of Herat, killing a local guard and two civilians along with himself.
You have to scroll down to find one of the keys:
That attack was aimed at Dyncorp, a US company training the Afghan police force in poppy eradication work.
However wrongheaded our worldwide war on drugs may be, it is not a justification for murdering innocents.
No doubt it would not excuse an attack on innocents. Explanations and justifications are often confused. The war on poppy production may not be a good justification for an attack on a military base (or even anyone else), but it may be a very good explanation for why it happens. And to ignore that would be a terrible mistake.
Bravo Tom Palmer.
I wish that I had thought a bit more before writing my response to Mr. Lichtman’s comment. Had I done so, I would have written that it is useful to distinguish between explanations and justifications, not that they are “often confused.” Upon re-reading it, I fear that it sounds a bit harsh and did not convey what I had hoped to communicate.
I think that the distinction between justifications and explanations is one of the most important in all discussions of violence. I fear that the fact that it is missed leads some who are opposed to assertions of U.S. military force to write in favor of terrorist attacks (that is a charitable interpretation, which some have made clear they do not deserve), as well as by people who are tempted to equate historical explanations of wicked and evil deeds with justifications for them.
I understand what you mean, Tom. I appreciate the clarification.