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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (138225)	6/28/2004 4:42:47 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Sorry, this does not strike me as such a big difference. There is such a thing as statistical certainty. One way or another, when you decide to bomb somewhere you do know that X number of innocent civilians will be killed as a direct result of your actions. True enough, they are not your real target and you prefer not to waste your bullets on ineffective targets. It's just that they are in your way of getting to your goals, so you do it anyway. It is a matter of common sense that everyone tries to accomplish their goals in the least costly manner, given the tools available to them. From this perspective, there is little difference if any between the terrorist and an army involved in city war. I can picture terrorists having a conversation along the lines of: gee we'd really like to get rid of the government but it's got massive security and is out of our reach, but if we target the FBI building in Oklahoma then we can at least hurt them ...but Tim what about the people in the building? ...I feel sorry for them but they are casualties of war. We cannot just sit here and do nothing. And in any event, they are more closely aligned with the beast than with us. Any time you pick up arms in response to anything but a direct attack on yourself, you are responsible for all the casualties of your actions. There is no moral high ground here. ST