SI
SI
discoversearch

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: GST who wrote (145582)9/14/2004 1:03:59 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I don't wish to argue with your perspective. What is important for me, is that we hold our selves to a higher standard of conduct than the terrorists. The tickle free zone needs to be addressed as a matter of principle. Collateral damage is one thing, labeling civilians as justified targets due to implicitly or explicitly collaborating with the enemy (as we did historically, and as those we label terrorists do in modern times) is quite a different thing. Under this rule there are no innocents, and the issue of "war on terrorism" becomes muted.



To: GST who wrote (145582)9/15/2004 3:31:57 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 281500
 
I am afraid the same is happening in Iraq. We fire into houses and know not who is in them. We fire into streetcrowds, not caring too much about who is standing on the street.

We fire at those that are firing or threatening us. We have not gone around randomly shooting up houses and firing in to crowds. If people in a house shoot at a patrol then the house is targeted but that isn't targeting civilians even if their are also non-violent civilians in the house.

Tim


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News