Dave Hall wrote:

I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?


Some other choice, perhaps?

By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent
civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim
any higher moral ground.

If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill
lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference
between us and those we go after.

It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 14:08:30 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?


Some other choice, perhaps?

I'm all ears. Tell me what that choice is.


By oozing down to the level of the terrorists (killing innocent
civilians), we're no better than they are, and we certainly cannot claim
any higher moral ground.

We don't need to. We only need to win.


If that's what we're left with, and if in terms of practicality, we kill
lots of innocent civilians, too, we're not demonstrating much difference
between us and those we go after.

The difference is we don't kill people for no reason. We didn't fly
airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point. If the
terrorists refuse to follow the terms of war as defined by the Geneva
convention, then they should be the ones responsible for the lives of
the people that they willingly place in harm's way. We still have the
right to pursue the enemy.

What signal does that send to the enemy if we cease pursuing them if
they hide in civilian areas?



It's so unfortunate we don't seem to have reliable intel or even
reliable Iraqis on the ground in their country, eh?


I wouldn't know, and neither do you. Neither one of us has a "need to
know".

Dave