Don, How is it that you can be so condemning of 'them' and gloss over the fact that 'US forces' are killing innocent children daily?
peace & Love On Jun 15, 3:35 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > From what I've read, most 'martyrs' are mentally disturbed people. > Recruited and used for the political ends of terrorist leaders. > Blowing ones self up in a crowded bus stop or popular cafe is insane. > And inhuman. I see no heroism here. Our disagreement on this issue > alone infects all others. One has only to read the objectives of > Jihadists and compare them with the objectives of Western military > efforts to see who has the more noble goal. If your response is to > say the terrorists rhetoric is exaggerated and ours(Western) all lies > or propaganda then there is nothing else to discuss. I tend to base > my opinion on people and countries on what they say as well as what > they do. By their words and actions terrorists of all kinds prove to > me almost every day the dehumanizing and destructive nature of radical > Islam. I'd be happier if we were more honest about this. > > There can be no political solution because the enemy isn't organized > like a state. Someone recently posted something about Palestine not > even being an actual country. It's a collection of refugees from > other countries used as a buffer against Israel. I see Israel again > and again bending over backwards for a solution with Palestine. It > will never happen politically. > > dj > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 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? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
