"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
No, a retaliation is merited based upon the objective basis of the
offense and objective moral imperative to do something. I have stated
these above. If we are targeting their innocent civilians, trying to kill
as many as possible, based upon our religion, they are justified to use
violence to stop us.


Stephen

We are killing people, even today, with robots and "smart bombs." From
hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away, these devices are pointed at
their targets and told to go explode. As these devices are incapable of
determining for themselves whether or not they are targeting innocent
people, they just do as they are told and kill everyone within the
immediate blast zone.

Now, you tell me: Are we "targeting their innocent civilians"?

We have the audacity to call people who are defending themselves from an
invading army "terrorists," while our weapons are launched at them from a
safe distance. We shudder at the thought of civilians who strap explosives
to themselves and give their lives to take out the enemy, calling them
"cowards," while we kill them from another continent at no danger to
ourselves. And any innocents we happen to kill are "regretable accidents,"
or "collateral damage."

Excuse me while become I sick to my stomach.



Exactly. We need to have very clear objectives if we're going to go after
terrorists. There's certainly a military element to it, but that needs to be
understood to increase the terrorist threat as well as deal with it. We also
must have a social policy to deal with the root causes of terrorist
behavior. This includes dumb stuff like PR and not so dumb stuff like
diplomacy and infrastructure efforts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com