Missed your post. This is exactly it, direct confrontation, no games, enough is enough.
"I have been told of a certain sea snake which has a very unusual method of attracting its prey. It will lie at the bottom of the ocean as if wounded. Then its enemies will approach, and yet it will lie quite still. And then its enemies will take little bites of it, and yet it remains still." Falco to Commodus in Gladiator. Is that we are to become, a sea snake that lets the enemy take little bites out it? On Jun 15, 5:32 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
