I explain it as simple primate sub-speciative response. Its a biologically programed response.
On Jun 15, 3:32 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > How do you explain the hardened British resolve after the Blitz and > Fire bombing of London- WWII or America's changed attitude after Pearl > Harbor? Or our initial reaction to 9-11? > > On Jun 15, 5:21 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The answer is simple. We do not kill them because it will negatively > > affect our efforts on the battlefield to achieve superiority. It > > motivates the enemy, hardens and destroys our own morale, and all for > > no strategic purpose. Ultimately, it is a political objective that we > > are trying to reach. Moving it farther out of our hands make no sense. > > > On Jun 14, 11:14 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think you are losing the context of the thread. Perhaps lining them > > > up for a firing squad veers the thread intent off track. I thought > > > there would be a psychological discussion but instead it is turning > > > out to be everything else but. > > > > The "civilians" and the "combatants"... the "guilty" and the "innocent > > > bystander" are co-located. <JT > > > > Sure they are, no kidding? I'm not suggesting now nor did I suggest > > > at any time that we bomb the whole place, killing innocent people in > > > the process. My only suggestion was that we just eliminate the enemy > > > combatants during ground wars of any kind. > > > The context of the thread is pertaining to all wars, any wars, > > > fighting over anything. Like the civil war! > > > Again!! > > > There is a change that takes place. Soldier A is shooting at soldier > > > B with all the intention of killing him. Soldier B for whatever > > > reason gets caught by soldier A. Soldier B, who killed several of > > > soldier A's friends and claims he will kill more if given the > > > opportunity, is taken by soldier A and treated very well. Why? > > > > SO!! I am simply saying that If I were soldier A, I would just kill > > > soldier B (the enemy) instead of wasting my time catering to his > > > needs. > > > > If we are going to kill then lets kill otherwise let's put out a huge > > > picnic table and have Soldiers A and Soldiers B sit down and treat > > > each other nicely while they eat!! > > > > On Jun 14, 12:25 pm, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You seem to have no awareness of the context of what is happening. You > > > > seem not to see the context at all. > > > > > First, the term "war". If we are in a war then we are in a severely > > > > asymetrical one. There is no government that has "declared" war on us > > > > in this thing. Nor is there a society, working together in an > > > > organized manner behind a defended perimeter. > > > > > The "civilians" and the "combatants"... the "guilty" and the "innocent > > > > bystander" are co-located. > > > > > What is the technical objective of a terrorist strike? What was Osama > > > > bin Laden's objective for 9/11? Do you think he was "trying to destroy > > > > us"? No he was not. If he was trying to destroy us he needed a > > > > significant increment in the tonnage of his explosives. Don't you not > > > > realize that he KNEW that 9/11 would not destroy us and that the > > > > function of the mission was to draw us into the kind of conflict that > > > > the Russians got into so that he could use the same techniques on us > > > > as he did on them and then DISCREDIT us. Not DESTROY us. DISCREDIT us. > > > > If he can de-ligitamize our actions and our society then he can > > > > legitemize his own struggle and through that process gain the > > > > political strength that he would need to actually destroy us. When > > > > that happens his ideas win. Preventing his ideas from taking hold is > > > > the whole enchilada. > > > > > Your idea of "just killing" those in Guatanamo is wrong on several > > > > levels not the least of which is strategic. You would play right into > > > > their hands. At the beginning of the war that eliminated the Taliban > > > > we had the opportunity to reconfigure the entire political dialogue on > > > > which international relations is based. We should have seen our > > > > primary objective as the need to de-legitimize that kind of action and > > > > those kind of people and kept our hands "extra" clean taking > > > > extraordinary measures to prevent casualties among the innocent and > > > > drawing a clear distinction between "us" those that would not use > > > > those techniques and "them" those that do. The political fallout would > > > > have been the collapse of Jihadist movement. (I am not saying that we > > > > should not have disarmed the Taliban- so don't strawman me.) > > > > > I suspect that the number of children, not just innocents, but > > > > innocent children, that we have "slaughtered" or "maimed" -words that > > > > take thinking about to realize their meaning - is now greater than we > > > > lost in NYC. And still we have the - well I am sorry to use the word > > > > but I must - imbecilic - ideas like you are proposing floating around. > > > > > The real tragedy of the Obama victory was that it was so close and so > > > > many of you just have no clue strategically. You have witnessed and > > > > are witnessing the collapse of American power which would not be a > > > > problem except that we "were" the "best hope" of taking the world into > > > > a happy future. Ah well, perhaps we should just wait for the Chinese > > > > to rise to the occasion and lead us there. > > > > > Where is your common sense man? > > > > > On Jun 14, 11:36 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > OK so we've covered some definitions and perspectives and maybe even > > > > > had a few drinks. Now! > > > > > Can we figure out why we straddle the fence between wanton killing and > > > > > humanitarian treatment in times of war? Do we feel guilty? Are we > > > > > trying to say that we're not all that bad? Why do we care? > > > > > > In the movie Saving Private Ryan, Capt. Millers interpreter, Cpl. > > > > > Upham intervenes in a desire to shoot a captured German. Eventually > > > > > after much arguing they let the soldier go. Later, in another scene > > > > > that same soldier, rejoined with his regiment, gains access to > > > > > building and kills one of the men that wanted to kill him earlier. > > > > > > I guess initially the German enemy was set free because he was > > > > > captured and was now unarmed and they just couldn't kill him in cold > > > > > blood. How many enemies did that soldier kill since they let him go? > > > > > I don't get it. Is there that much confusion in war objective? I > > > > > guess it is somewhat like the death penalty issue where opponents > > > > > would rather we preserve the lives of those that want to kill us. > > > > > > Was the German soldier no longer an enemy just because he was > > > > > unarmed? Isn't being an enemy a state of mind? Won't all those > > > > > released return to attack when their numbers have reorganized and > > > > > reached the point of becoming a formidable enemy?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
