« This War Will Bring No Peace | Main | My Sister »

July 19, 2006

Comments

The military needs to confess that "collateral damage" is a ten dollar term for people whose lives hold no value for them. What is someone who does not value your life if not an enemy? There is no way to beat anyone into loving you.

You say "I know your supposed terrorists and I say to you, you and your logic are the same as Hizbullah. And any one of us could become a terrorist if the factors were right."

You express your disliking of the terrorists, but then you say "any one of us could become a terrorist if the factors were right", which seems like a justification of terrorism.

There is no moral equivalency between the terrorists and the countries who go after the terrorists and kill civilians by mistake as happens with any country trying to defend itself. By making a moral equvalency between the two groups you are essentially talking the language of the terrorists.

Unless a country is willing to defend itself without having to worry about those people who equate their actions with the actions of Sheik Nasralleh and other terrorists, they will fall, eventually. Your message is not the message of peace, but rather the language of the terrorists.

Hopefully none of us would go out (as you maintain) and kill people under any circumstance, although the circumstance in this case is nothing but rabid hatred wrapped in a so called idealogy - not the righteous cause you think it is.

When peace and concessions were offered by Israel in the past, acts of terror against their country increased enormously.

It shouldn't take the death of a talented musican, with whom you feel a connection to, for you to question terrorism. I'm sorry, but there something about your message of peace that just doesn't pass the mustard - I'm sorry. Others will hear a rational voice of "peace" in your words. I don't.

I just found this blog and I really appreciate it. Your most recent post makes me think of something my father said to me very recently: "In the so-called Holy Land, the point of No Return has been crossed. Taking sides there is an impossibility for anyone with a heart and brain operating synchronously."

I take the side of civilians everywhere. I'll be reading this blog regularly.

And, um, it's "pass muster", not "pass the mustard".

"There is no moral equivalency between the terrorists and the countries who go after the terrorists and kill civilians by mistake as happens with any country trying to defend itself. "

Ever hear that old saying: "A difference that makes no difference is no difference"? You could wear a halo and six pairs of wings in your own pure glowing soul, but the people you kill will be just as dead as those "the terrorists" kill.

Is the difference between "terrorists" and the legitimate governments that the word "countries" presumes anything but couture? If they dress right and drop bombs instead of throwing them, does that make those "accidents" OK? What happens when both sides get missiles -- is the difference where the foreign aid comes from, or how many hands it's passed through?

How do you feel about drunk drivers, Murph?

Apparently, these people don't get it, or better yet, don't want to get it. Did you ever here of war and self defense, Ron?
Should Israel be at the mercy of Hezbollah forever? How many ceasefires has Israel made with the Palestinian leadership? Do you feel much better now preaching your phony morality to a country trying to rid itself of a gigantic Terrorist beehive? War is war. And you try not to harm civilians. Occasionally you'll hit a wrong target or you'll destroy a bunker next to a civilian neighborhood.I'll take the side of defending a homeland from a rutheless enemy. Your morality is very nice, but these people got a country to protect. You've got a different agenda!
Maybe, you don't know this, but it's not possible to fight this kind of war without civilian casualties.

It's not possible to fight any kind of war without civilian casualties. So what make this different from terrorism? Better PR?

If you subscribe to the argument that no civilian can ever be hurt or killed, no matter what, then one terrorist could walk into the middle of any city in the world with a civilian hostage, and, assuming he has the ammunition, kill everyone in the city, because no one would dare risk injuring the hostage.

Is this really what we are advocating?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Cookbooks