Taking out the terrorists

Craven de Kere wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I submit that there are few peoples in the world who, being subjected to an ongoing campaign of this type, would not respond in the strongest military terms.

Indeed, which goes to show that simplistic idiots are common while their opposites are rare.

I assert that when subjected to an ongoing campaign of bombing public, civilian areas, for a nation to respond with force is normal and understandable, and does not make one a simplistic idiot.

You have revised your statement in a very important way, making it far more agreeable.

It was not my intention to revise it, but I'm glad that you agree with some version of it anyway.

0 Replies

I's say the differenec is similar to the difference between the following response to a rape:

1) "nuke harlem"

2) "Arrest this suspect"

On one hand you intimated a response proportionate to the anger one feels and in the other a response that may well have to utilize force to prevent further attack.

That's why I agree with one and not with the other. Force is frequently necessary but the "strongest military terms" part is an example of a poorly thought position about the gravest of issues.

"Respond with force" allowed for much saner options.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I's say the differenec is similar to the difference between the following response to a rape:

1) "nuke harlem"

2) "Arrest this suspect"

On one hand you intimated a response proportionate to the anger one feels and in the other a response that may well have to utilize force to prevent further attack.

That's why I agree with one and not with the other. Force is frequently necessary but the "strongest military terms" part is an example of a poorly thought position about the gravest of issues.

"Respond with force" allowed for much saner options.

I still believe that in the presence of of a campaign of madmen materializing in public places and blowing all present to kingdom come, the typical, and reasonable response would be a very strong use of force. If I don't use the exact same phraseology each time I state an opinion, that's just because I'm a man and not a tape recorder (this sounds kind of sarcastic, but is not intended to).

0 Replies

We obviously have very different definitions of what is reasonable because in many ways I'd call that the absense of reason. Emotion calling itself reason.

0 Replies

Somebody murders your relatives deliberately, you tend to become emotional, and I see nothing wrong with that.

0 Replies

Fair enough, but calling emotion reason is not truthful IMO.

0 Replies

For those of you interested in learning something new, Richard Clarke's book contains a very revealing history of the relationship between Israel and the US...how it came about and how it evolved. There's much there I knew nothing of.

Of course, there is nothing said above regarding Israel's policies - how they might be mistaken and even immoral - which are not voiced every day within Israel itself, but those who are not in agreement with Likud.

0 Replies

Psst, Bernie, you've oversold it to the point that I'm considering not readin' it. ;-)

0 Replies

lol

actually, I wan't even trying to do that here (though true in all other instances)...I actually was just trying to pass on that there is an important story here of which I (and likely most of us) was too poorly aware...and that I'm realizing that some of my ideas have been presumptuous.

0 Replies

I'm actually really interested in hearing what notions it disabused you of, why not start a thread about the book (maybe even in the book forum)?

0 Replies

done earlier... http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21335&highlight=
but I have yet to add much to it...too busy sparking here.

Taking out the terrorists

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know