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: michael97123 who wrote (149381)	10/27/2004 4:51:12 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael, you say: "But again you miss the point. If someone blows up kids in a bus, or in a school or beheads truck drivers, the violent reaction to those events even if there is collateral damage is justifiable. What are folks who have 300 kids killed in a school or a pizza parlor blown apart to do? Allow the degenerates to take over?? That's the start of the cycle. Take it one step farther. Let's assume that one side was blameless and then the victim of an attack on innocents. Their reaction; kill someone and if other innocents get in the way, who can blame them? But then wouldn't those innocents who lost loved ones in the "retaliation" justifiably retaliate and kill the innocent with the guilty? After all, "collateral damage is justifiable." Then you soon get a geometric progression in the number of people who can legitimately use force that inflicts "collateral damage." This is one of the fundamental understanding of insurgents. The more they attack innocents and create counter attacks on other innocents, the more likely they are to create support for their insurgency. Soon we have the situation in Iraq where our troops now say that they believe they are hated by most Iraqis. That's why in the ensuing years of occupation the insurgents become the popular force. Lessons of history should be respected. Re: If you could push a button and kill the terrorist in the crowd, but not harm anyone that would be an improvement. Please invent that device for us or get the terrorists to cease and desist if you are interested in those civilians as well as the vics. There will never be such a device. The choice is whether you place a higher value on a dead terrorist than you do on the innocent lives of those near him. If it were possible that your children would be standing in that targeted crowd would you still make the same choice, or is it easier if it's "them" and not "us" that loses lives? It takes courage to do the right thing and place a high value on justice and on innocent lives. It takes REAL courage to assume greater personal risk in order to protect innocent life. That's why we don't wipe out "bad neighborhoods" in order to alleviate crime problems in our cities. That's why we didn't like it when Calley killed the "bad village" to make sure he stopped attacks that were emanating from there. In the long run, however, that's not only the right moral choice; it's also the choice that leads to a safer world. Ed