Martin Buber. I/Thou.
On Jun 15, 6:11�pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? �
>
> ...
>
> read more �- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
