I may be a pacifist to a certain extent, but when I turn the other cheek it's a set up to rip off the fucking arm should they go for it :-)
The 'War of Terrorism' is creating the terrorist of tomorrow. It is guaranteeing NO safety for a long time to come. There's one big difference between us Don. You believe the propaganda of the US government because it's an easy excuse for the shit. I know the world is fucked up as it is. I don't need any excuses for it, I know there's a way to change it. peace & Love 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 » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
