An eye for an eye?

By now, the infamous Iraqi woman whose failed attempt to set off a bomb in a Jordanian wedding party last week is well known. She is alleged to have said that the motive for her action was to avenge the killing of her three brothers and a brother-in-law by US forces stationed in Iraq. Little else, however, is reported about these alleged killings by US forces, but it would not be unreasonable to speculate that those who were killed were probably playing with fire in the first place. We do not know if these brothers were involved in opposing the US forces. Very likely they were.

But even if revenge was the motive, the target of this revenge was not the alleged 'killers', i.e. the US forces. Instead, she intended to kill Jordanians, whose only 'crime' was by association - i.e. Jordan's non-opposition to the US-led occupation of Iraq. Surely this is taking reason beyond reason, and more than an eye is demanded for an eye?

Thus terrorists kill without good reason, and their actions can in no way be defended at all.