The Original Internet Political Quiz.

[Farmageddon]

sapphi_snake said:

This would also be a good situation. But still, we shouldn't forget that most military conflicts can be avoided in the first place.

Yeah, they are. People say you need two people to start a fight, but sometimes one person is enough  to put you in a situation you either fight or are fucked up. You may argue in most cases resigning to the agressor is still the best way out but then what kind of freedom have you got. Anyway, most armies are there so people know it'll cost them if they mess with you. Look at most countries. Most of them have armies, and most of them don't go around getting into wars that often. So an army when used like this actually prevents you being militarily pushed around but still tries to avoid wars. That's the reason I say the army as an institution is a necessity and a tool, the real problem is that some people will abuse some tools.

I guess we disagree on this part. For me both the cause and the sacrifice are equally important.

Well, the definition of martyr is:

According to Wikipedia: "A martyr is somebody who suffers persecution and death for refusing to renounce a belief or cause, usually religious"

According to merriam-webster dictionary: "2. a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle"(the first definition is about religion)

That's a martyr. How right the guy was doesn't matter. Doesn't mean you should regard every martyr as a hero or anything, but if the guy willingly gave his life for his cause, he's a martyr.