On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:33:59 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


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.


Thus, you enunciate the basic flaw in your logic and thinking. You
assume that the terrorists who were involved in 9-11 "killed people for
no reason." That is not correct. The terrorists did (and do) kill for a
reason or reasons. That reason may not be justifed and rational to you
or me, but I assure you, it is to them.

They have an agenda. They have demands. But to kill innocent people to
get our attention to those demands is, IMHO barbaric and excessive.
Common sense should also tell you that if we let things like 9/11 give
them the attention that they demand, that it only validates their
methods, and empowers others to do the same thing.


Further, we do kill people for no reason, or at least, no acceptable
reason. If you think otherwise, you are very, very naive.

Cite examples please.


We didn't fly
airplanes into tall buildings to make a political point.

We don't have to; we have missiles and bombs we can fire off or drop
from altitude.

When have we ever fired missiles or dropped bombs to make the world
sit up and take notice to our political agenda?


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.

Well, that's certainly an easy way out for us and a nice rationalization.

What other alternative is there? Either we both play by the same rules
or one of us is at a serious tactical disadvantage.


What your kind of thinking leads to is...more killing...on both sides.

The difference is, when we're done killing the enemy and making them
cry "uncle" the killing will stop. They will not stop killing until
they meet their objectives, which is the extermination of "infidels".
If we give in (weakness) to their demands, they will only make more.


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


Yeah, we do. We may not need to know "the intel," but we sure as hell
need to know if the intel our supposed leaders get is reliable and, if
it is, whether they pay attention to it, or whether they pursue an
idiotic political agenda in spite of reliable intel.

Just think what might have happened if we have the mass media network,
the internet, and satellite technology during WWII. There would 've
been the same uninformed civilian armchair quarterbacking. Sometimes,
we (think we) know too much. Maybe we should just let the people
involved do their jobs instead of throwing out constant criticism and
making false or inaccurate conjectures which do nothing by undermine
our ability.


You know, sort of
like the idiotic political agenda and warmongering the Bush
administration is pursuing.

When you don't know all the facts, and fall victim to the biased
ramblings of opposing sides with their own agendas, it's not hard to
come to that conclusion.

Dave