Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]()
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|