In 'Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?', Lionel K. McPherson concludes by insisting that "the failures of the dominant view of terrorism should lead us to adopt either a more critical attitude toward conventional war or a less condemnatory attitude toward terrorism." Do you agree with this conception of the moral alternative? If not, why do you disagree? If so, which stance do you take-a more critical attitude toward conventional war or a less critical attitude toward terrorism? Why? The idea here is that the author is calling into question the foundational beliefs that we have about war, justice, and terrorism and the inextricable link between them.