I can imagine being sent to survey a target aftermath to find it was a day care center would be pretty depressing.
peace & Love On Jun 16, 4:42 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > It may also explain the high suicide rate of returning vets. Also the > long term effects of Agent Orange/Vietnam. > > On Jun 15, 8:44 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Massacre is real easy these days, the perpetrator can be sitting miles > > away, no fuss no muss. > > I think all the brain warped vets coming back today are twisted by the > > merciless savagery of the 'smart weapons'. > > > peace & Love > > > On Jun 15, 6:58 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Quite often drones are doing the killing and someone in a remote video/ > > > war room is pulling the trigger. To think this hasn't happened as a > > > side effect (collateral damage) of war over the centuries is being > > > blind-sided by the polite appraisal of war. Now, it is technological > > > warriors- the graduates of kill/ratio courses at M.I.T. In the > > > meantime, when a public at war is told to go out and shop during a > > > major crisis of war, economic turmoil, uproars of Nature, political > > > distractions, etc. I think you have a very dangerous moral disconnect > > > but that is really nothing new either. Think back to the poison gas/ > > > trench warfare of WWI if you wish to stay in the 20th C. which has > > > been swimming in toxic chemical soup ever since- "Paths of Glory"- a > > > movie. Or the naive consumer or even the alert consumer who cannot > > > avoid toxic products. Perhaps we are all at war- fertile men and women > > > are subject to chemical warfare that affects their fertility and > > > health of their children or plagues them later in life with cancers > > > and brain damage which are difficult to trace. A new Moloch. > > > > On Jun 15, 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 > > ... > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
