The enemy hides behind children when a bomb is dropped? There is no just cause for the US to be there, yes, give up and leave.
peace & Love On Jun 15, 5:12 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Show me some evidence, Tink. I'd wager we feed and house many more > children then are killed as collateral damage. We put our soldiers at > great risk to avoid it but it does happen. Where is this evidence of > 'daily' killings? When the enemy hides behind children and kills our > soldiers what are we to do? Give up and leave? > > dj > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Tinker<[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
