Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trooth
I don't believe that in any struggle "all" can be applied to either side. What i do believe is that the side of good can prove the bad side correct. Islam isn't the enemy. Militant islam may be the enemy. However the people who are not militant have to make choices everyday and the west has to be careful that it does not make the moderates make a badly informed choice. If buildings start turning to rubble, people are not going to assume that they deserved it in the asbsence of any other evidence. They tend to assume that this outrage must be revenged. Introspection is a grea thing, but it is seldom seen.
|
That doesn't even convince me Islam isn't the enemy, and I allready don't think it is, good luck with M21 Sniper. It doesn't do any good to say carpet bombing will create enemies if one allready sees them as the enemy. Until the moderates get off the fence and back a side, I have little sympathy for them, though I don't consider them the enemy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trooth
We have a city, and it has been proposed to use artiliiery against it (a city that contains religious sites although no-one has said shelling them - but we all know that there is such a thing as collateral damage) and it has further been proposed ot caprt bomb it. Which solution do you prefer? Shelling, carpet bombing, or something else?
|
Except for M21 Sniper I haven't seen anyone call for indescriminate artillery strikes or carpet bombing the city. You were the one talking about a strike on a religous site when you said "believe that "the US must be the great Satan, it has just sent a load of heavy bombers to lay waste to a religious site", the post I quoted. Besides Sniper, I've seen mentioned artillery to be called in for support of troops under fire, but that's it. I prefer the use of all force necessary plus 20%, I allready said that. It's impossible to be more specific because I don't have enough information on the exact situation in every single part of the city.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trooth
Fallujah. It is not me that is proposing the same solution for each eventuality. However what is being proposed here is a "kill them all" approach. It has been stated several times that the US should be more aggressive and a parallel has been made to the 40s. I am getting the impression that people like to speak in terms of generalisations, to leave wiggle room for what they really mean, to allow for circumstances to unfold further. If that is the case then this is somewhat a futile debate.
|
I haven't proposed the same solution either, nor the solutions you've accused me of making. It wasn't a parallel to the 40's, it was a comparison to the 40's, thus the "if this were" part, a parallel would be "should do it like". Also, since I understand what people are saying, and you don't, I'd say it's not so much their generalization, as your reading more than is written.