“As a member of one family that survived a bomb, I can tell you from the bottom of my heart: Bombing will never be the solution. “
The interesting thing about the Washington Post article is that although it raises an issue that I believe in, it is completely illogical.
The argument is that bombing people makes people angry and increases the risk of terrorism. This argument is being put by someone who survived an Al-Qaeda bomb, but instead of reacting angrily and being in favor of the war she is against bombing. However noble her intentions, she disproves her own argument in the very act of proposing it.
Its an interesting conundrum for newspaper editors – a victim of terrorism is a more credible proponent of anti-war, much like anti-war Vietnam vets, but the argument, that bombing only creates anger and revenge can only be made by someone who is not a victim and therefore less credible.