at the temporal coordinates: 9/12/01 9:57 AM, the entity known as Alexey
Danilchenko at dalex_at_iname.com conveyed the following:
>
> Eric L. Strobel" <fyzycyst_at_home.com>:
>
>> Sorry, but innocents DO get killed in war. While everything that can
>> humanly be done to limit this should be done, this should NOT be a deterrant
>> to EVER going to war. Such reasoning would have the Nazis and Imperial
>> Japan ruling the world. Remember, any government harboring or aiding these
>> swine has made a choice on behalf of their nation. Any harm befalling their
>> citizens as a result is the fault of THAT government.
>
> Sounds really like nazis. Who gave you right to judge people lifes based on
> the fact that some crazy assasins are hiding in their country? There is
> absolutely NO justification for murdering innocent people. You cannot do a
> good thing in a violent way. It's really simple - violence will create
> violence in reply. And that will start next World War. There is no point to
> fight for the world because there more likely will be no world after this war.
> Most of the countries have nuclear weapons now...
There are SO MANY things wrong with this that I hardly know where to
begin... First off, you obviously know NOTHING about the Nazis or you
wouldn't have written that first sentence. Next, nobody is judging the
lives of those who might get killed in any action taken against the swine
that did this or those that give them aid.
And, for your information, the deaths of innocents in wartime is only murder
when the purpose of the attack is to deliberately kill civilians. This is a
widely accepted principle that's been around probably as long as there's
been wars. Also, as stated in other messages, these civilians make a
conscious choice to support their government either actively (in which case
they truly are not innocent) or passively (through inaction).
Finally, which nuclear power will nuke the US for any retaliation we do?
Especially as we won't be using any nukes (there's no concentrated
high-value target of the terrorists or their supporters that would warrant
the use of nukes). And, if you want to discuss military doctrine and
nuclear weapons, there's newsgroups for that -- although you might want to
do some reading, as espousing that tired old fallacy about automatic
escalation to global obliteration will get you soundly laughed at.
>
>> Having said that, there IS one motivation that can be used to attack these
>> dogs and the governments that support them. Their so-called holy war and
>> all the acts springing from that are (as with all human activity) intended
>> to achieve their goals. The only proper thing to do is to ensure that such
>> acts in fact HARM their goals. And, given the massiveness of the attack,
>> the response should be far more massive. I'm not talking JUST militarily.
>> Through diplomacy, private and public groups, AND military response, EVERY
>> 'weapon' should be brought to bear to guarantee that far greater harm comes
>> to their goals than they could ever have imagined.
>
> I agree there should be counter-actions taken - but not in a form of war to
> the whole country. This is damn stupid. Take for example Hiroshima in 1945.
> Based on your conclusions above - japanese should have launch a massive
> counter-attack on USA and destroy it as a country. But they did not...
>
That's a silly statement. It was WAR! If Japan HAD been capable of such
retaliation, they would have done so and would not have surrendered. If you
feel that pinprick attacks against the Nazi or Imperial Japanese military
would have been sufficient to defeat them, you'd best do a LOT of studying
on the topic. The only way to end that war was to eliminate those powers'
ability to continue to wage war. Unfortunately, that meant destroying a
great deal of civil infrastructure that was being used for the manufacture
and distribution of war materiel.
Sorry, but naive, utopian views just don't cut it in this world.
- Eric.
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:47 EDT