"However, the focus on Bush and Company is clearly justified - if only by the strong emotions representing a real threat to health and safety (never mind economic stability) being expressed by the citizens of this nation.
I am trying to push a logical point. I will try again:
If you justify your action against terrorists on the premise that 'targeting an innocent' is intolerable, then sound reasoning suggests your justification is lost when you start talking about bombing Mecca. I am pretty sure you see that point and not just because it criticises the right wing.
If your complaint about the Bush Admin is 'lies' (based on suspicions of fraud, founded on circumstancial evidence), then your complaint is nullified by using wild and illogical conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated mendacious allegations, and other illogical venues, to challenge the Bush Admin.
Bind your causes to principle and bring honor to your issues and complaints and I am 100% in your camp.
" Punishment just makes for retribution among the stout of heart, and the attrition from our abuse just raises the value of the "stout of heart."
Sure, when the punishment is unjustified or based in some inhumane emotion like vengence, it has no place in decent society. However, when the motivation is violent aggression or disruption (like terrorism), no intervention will stop that behavior short of the terrorism successfully achieving its goal or being forcefully stopped. The goal of terrorist organizations is to conquer by any means possible. People committed to that venue must be stopped by force not merely as an act of punishment but as the only resolution that works in our interests.
It is true that when you attempt to block aggression the behavior is likely to escalate until the original motivations are satisfied; which is why you can neither surrender to it, or balk when it becomes more severe.
|
