Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (42263)	1/15/2002 2:44:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

After those brutal attacks on me (and my former wife), if I had burned down the homes where the attackers lived and had support, killing or mutilating the mostly innocent residents who lived there in the process, it would have been the wrong approach to say the least, no matter how easy it may have been or how justified I felt it would have been at the time.... The analogy was not just that they had made the attack that they made but that they where an organized group who would continue to try and kill you again and again. That even if you killed all the specific people who made the attack the group would still be after you just as if we had killed every pilot that attacked Pearl Harbor, we would still have been subject to attack by the Japanese. War is different then ordinary criminal attack. Criminals go against the rules of their societies or countries. War happens when the who society, clan, tribe, or country attacks others. In a state of anarchy with no police or justice system and no government even a limited loosely organized one you are justified in retaliating against attacks by other individuals or groups if they had done things that amount to what I had described in my previous post as waging war on you. (openly and repeatedly trying to kill you and those you care about and destroy or steal your possessions, again and again). Of course you should try to harm only the guilty party if possible, but those protecting the guilty part or providing him with weapons are also legitimate targets. If a group or tribe of people was organized against you the way a country is organized against you in the way Japan was organized against the US in WWII then the group or clan as a whole is in many ways a legitimate target. Of course every reasonable effort should be made to reduce the deaths of innocent people, but war is inherently brutal, you do what you have to do to win. If you don't you lose and you, or your family, tribe, or country dies instead of the enemy. In a war fought with for limited ends by limited means it might be right to lose the objective of the war rather then kill a huge number of enemy civilans, but WWII was not such a limited war. I do not believe in punishing all for the sins and crimes of others, whether it be on an individual or national scale. Waging an aggressive war is a crime on a national scale. The perpetrator is one nation or nation who makes the attack. It is usually not easily possible to separate the leadership of a country from the country and attack only the leadership. Even if you can assassinate the enemies top leader he is rarely the only one responsible and you frequently will achieve neither justice nor defense just by assassination the one person. We where able to knock the Taleban out of power recently but even with our overwhelming military might and precision, plus local allies, and the fact that the Taleban was not popular, we could not remove them without killing some innocent Afghanis. Tim