KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Bruce In Bangkok wrote:
On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:44:07 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Aragorn wrote:
It is a bit difficult to understand why they try to turf one guy out
of office for getting a blow job and don't even seem to notice when
another guy "legalizes" such things as torture and searches without a
warrant - things that you are preaching to the world are "human
rights".
All societies, including ours, consider it reasonable that some level of
criminal or enemy should lose many of their rights by virtue of
protecting society. When you find yourself defending the very lowest
scum of the earth, you should at least question the moral strength of
what you are arguing, shouldn't you?

I'm not defending anyone. I'm simply stating that people (perhaps men
mostly) find the rather violent reaction to one man doing something
that comes rather naturally and a different man doing something that
caused (and don't think it didn't) considerable loss of face for the
nation. How can a country that advocates justice and the rule of law
to foreign countries turn around and carryout the excesses that
happened?

It isn't that you tortured the people, it is that you preach justice
and rule of law to all the developing countries. Do as I say, not as I
do.
Again, there is a level of immorality that justifies treating people
badly. Recently the badness of human took a big step downward with the
advent of extremists who actually target and are able to murder large
groups of innocent people. This new level of badness requires a
modification of the normal response. In other words, if you strongly
suspect someone of being about to kill a large group of innocent people,
there is justification in torturing him or of course even killing him if
it helps you stop it from happening.

Now having said that, lets contrast the US response, compared to those we
are fighting. The entire country was and still is up in arms for years in
questioning the morality of dunking vicious criminals in water and scaring
them. We may have done it, but we are concerned about doing it and spend
much time trying to figure out if it is over the line so we can stop.
Meanwhile, as a recruiting tool, the enemy makes videotapes of themselves
cutting off innocent kidnap victims heads in order to attract more people
to their cause. No remorse of any sort, only further celebration and
congratulations have ever been evident. See the massive difference? So we
haven't really sunk anywhere at all, morally.

Meanwhile, if we've got a line on someone who we've discovered is about to
murder another few thousand people, what actions are justified to get him
to reveal information that can stop it? Harsh language only?

Stephen

Our retaliation is always justified, theirs is never justified. Interesting
rulebook.

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

"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.

"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

KLC Lewis wrote:
"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"?

Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians
than any weapon previously used by mankind.

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,

You mean, to take out innocent civilians, usually their fellow citizens.

calling them
"cowards,"

"Barbarians"

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.

Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians than
any weapon previously used by mankind.

Really? They have installed "Innocent Civilian Detectors"? I wasn't aware of
that. Sorry.


Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

It is not myself that I loathe, but the warmongers. As for the smart bombs
being targeted "directly at bad guys," we're back to the mythical "Innocent
Civilian Detector." Get back to me when you've invented it.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians
than any weapon previously used by mankind.

Really? They have installed "Innocent Civilian Detectors"? I wasn't aware
of that. Sorry.


Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

It is not myself that I loathe, but the warmongers. As for the smart bombs
being targeted "directly at bad guys," we're back to the mythical
"Innocent Civilian Detector." Get back to me when you've invented it.



He might have to be tortured to get the information!


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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


He might have to be tortured to get the information!


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

And it would be justifiable. ;-)

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...


He might have to be tortured to get the information!


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

And it would be justifiable. ;-)



I don't know. I'd give Fredo Gonzales a call and ask him, but he probably
can't remember if it's legal or not.

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

KLC Lewis wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Well, of course those bombs are better at avoiding innocent civilians than
any weapon previously used by mankind.

Really? They have installed "Innocent Civilian Detectors"? I wasn't aware of
that. Sorry.

Get educated. Of course they have enemy detectors (advance scouts who
call in coordinates) and bombs that are so accurate that less innocent
civilians are harmed than any previous bombs in history.

Your desire for self loathing is blinding you to reality. You seriously
can't see the difference between smart bombs targeted directly at bad
guys, and suicide bombers who are trying to kill as many innocents as
possible.

Stephen

It is not myself that I loathe, but the warmongers.

Only of your own country. Like I said, it's a psychology of self
loathing. People can't stand to face their own inadequacies so they take
aim at the next nearest targets, in representation of themselves.

As for the smart bombs
being targeted "directly at bad guys," we're back to the mythical "Innocent
Civilian Detector." Get back to me when you've invented it.

Google should help you there.

Stephen

yes the "smart bombs" do less damage to the surroundings than the old
carpet bombing. a bomb is a bomb it has a blast radius smart bomb just
means it "hits" what it was dropped to hit sometimes. and laser guided
just means it homes in on a target that is "painted" by an observer
this can be on the ground or from the air. some bombs are set up to
penetrate a hardened target. all of them have a blast radius of
several yards to several hundred feet depending on payload and
fragmentation characteristics. most of what the us drops are 500lb
bombs and they have a nice big blast radius. in a small village this
means that you get to hit almost all the huts. so if you hit your
target the folks next door get to die as the plaster, glass, jars,
stone work and crockery turns into shrapnel. air to ground missiles
are a bit better but only on surgical strikes cause they cost alot. we
call the civilian casualties collateral damage and this "war" has had
more than its share of that. oh sorry but thats not on the news cause
our govment has blocked any but the embedded reporters and wont let
folk release the civilian casualty numbers and show the real
destruction.

you cant make war on a feeling and this is exactly what terror is.
the organization of al kiada has weathered this storm and grows
stronger because of it. we are feeding the enemy and we are the ones
who planted the seed.
folks who think like you write made todays reality. they do it behind
closed doors and cloak it so the public wont see and they depend on
peoples patriotic fervor to forgive them.
they are cowards that fester in the dark, parsitizing the people of
the US with propaganda and justifications. those solders on the field,
even the most craven of them; are better than the cowards playing
cloak and dagger.

the ends do not justify the means.