Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: aladin who wrote (67362)	9/5/2004 11:38:01 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) of 793883

We don't have to target children I'm afraid the discussion has gone hopelessly astray. My premise was not about children. I was exploring why you would regard the targeting of civilians in Dresden as OK and the targeting of civilians in Cleveland not OK. All the differences I can find between them lean toward the bus bombing in Cleveland as less unacceptable. I have no idea how you got off onto children. I can imagine no reason to think there would be children on busses in Cleveland but not in houses in Dresden. Children, IMO, are not a factor in the comparison. But if you want to bring it in, it would seem that you would find more children sleeping in houses in Dresden than riding busses in Cleveland, which would further tilt toward the Cleveland side. I'm having trouble finding factors that make Dresden more acceptable. While these hypothetical Jihadi's occupy Cleveland - why aren't we shooting at them, rather than their kids? The question on the table is whether or not terrorism is ever acceptable. If you're trying to get an answer to that question, then you must frame the hypothetical around terrorism, not some other aspect of warfare. Shooting combatants is not terrorism. Bombing busses is.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next