Which brings us full circle.

Post #18,809 by Brandioch 11/19/01 1:33:02 PM Reply	Which brings us full circle. We're killing your civilians because you made us kill them because we can't tell who the bad guys are. I'll remember that comment, Drew, next time Israel uses a gunship on Arab civilians. Remember, we aren't talking about assigning blame AFTER the event. We're talking about our actions DURING the event. We're still bombing. The event is still happening. We do NOT HAVE TO kill civilians right now. Restraint. Which was my point at the beginning. All we're doing is breeding another generation of suicide bombers. It isn't Osama who's dropping those bombs. It's the US. It isn't Osama who will be blamed by the survivors. It's the US. That same "logic" is what keeps every generation of suicide bombers going. And now we have a chance to break the cycle. But why? That's too much work. Better to blame them. And drop more bombs.
Post #18,818 by drewk 11/19/01 2:11:43 PM Reply	On the effect of propoganda It isn't Osama who will be blamed by the survivors. It's the US. I don't doubt that. But my point stands: When someone hides among non-combattants, and goes out of his way to make himself indistinguishable from non-combatants, he should shoulder the blame when non-combattants inevitably get hurt. However (here's where propaganda comes in) when the non-combatants have been told by their state-sponsored media that the people in their midst are freedom fighters -- or whatever the local term is -- they have blamed the foe even before the retaliation. To see it from the other side, there have been monuments built and legends told of the heroic people who hid resistance fighters during WWII. When the Nazis came in and killed not only the resistance fighters but also those who housed them, would we expect the "non-combattants" to blame the resistance? Of course not. The point is, anyone who knowingly and willingly harbors a combattant has already made up their mind about who is right or wrong. They have chosen a side and taken part. (Damn, I'm agreeing with Bush.) We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #18,820 by Brandioch 11/19/01 2:21:30 PM Reply	You're shifting focus. We started off with people who UNKNOWINGLY shielded the attacker. Your example of someone dressing as a fan of one team and attacking fans of the other team. Now you're to the point of discussing people who actively support the attacker. Instead of that, why don't we continue to focus on the reactions of the people who don't fully support the attacker yet. The one's that form the crowd he is hiding in. You go to a ball game. You're cheering your team. Arabs start shooting at the crowd you're in. Hitting and killing many of you. But they were just trying to get the one person hiding in your crowd. Feel free to blame the person they claim to be shooting at. Rather then them for actually killing the people who weren't involved. Again, full circle. Let's breed another generation so we can continue the bombing.
Post #18,823 by drewk 11/19/01 2:40:27 PM Reply	You left out a few parts from the analogy Like the parts where the crowd I'm in is told that there is a "criminal" in our midst. Shown pictures of what he looks like. Told what he did and shown footage of the thousands of dead he caused. Told what section of the stands he is in. Told that that section will be targeted in 15 minutes and anyone still in it will be considered a willing collaborator. Okay, the analogy is getting stretched. But I know that's your preferred method of debate: focus on the flaws in an analogy rather than the insight it may provide. Any analogy that so closely matches the original situation as to have no arguable differences is no longer an analogy, but the thing itself. So rather than trying to refine my analogy any further, I'll go back to the original formulation: If a combatant hides among non-combatants in an explicit effort to cause them to be targeted, he is at fault for their deaths. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #18,827 by Brandioch 11/19/01 2:57:47 PM Reply	Think about that. We've bombed sites that we KNOW he is not in. We've hit civilians because of that. Care to reconsider your example? I agree, >IF< we could do what you say, then it would be easy to justify. But when they know what he looks like AND They know he isn't near them AND We bomb them THEN We are at fault

Welcome to IWETHEY!