Fair enough. I understand the pacifist view even if I don't think it solves problems or makes us safer. I guess it comes down to me feeling my kids are worth more then their kids. It sounds callous but its how I feel. If I had the choice pushing the proverbial button that kills 100 jihad radicalized foreign born children who's parents I don't know and saving my son's life I doubt I would even hesitate. Morally despicable but intellectually honest.
dj On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Tinker<[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
