A difference between Israelis and the terrorists
Definitely true.
Even the most extreme terrorist groups do not care about innocent lives during a crossfire.
Another example as above. Despite the reasoning of whether the appropriate responses were made by either side during this conflict, we know there is at least one difference between THEM and US.
Trackbacks
Trackback URL for this entry is: http://blog.case.edu/james.chang/mt-tb.cgi/9106
Islamic Extemists vs. Israeli and US troops in a time of war
Excerpt: These pictures show the approach of Israel and the US's soldiers approach versus those of the Islamic Extremists. James Chang's...
Weblog: College Conservative Movement
Tracked: August 1, 2006 03:25 PM
Comments
Posted by: Chad
Posted on: August 1, 2006 03:13 PM
for once... I agree with you
Posted by:
Posted on: August 2, 2006 08:27 AM
I'm sorry but innocent lives are innocent lives. One can label the "cause" whatever they want to sleep better at night, but that doesn't change the end results.
And as Americans, we are still responsible for the largest purposeful event on innoncent lives in a single attack. With the H-bomb in Hiroshima.
Why are the "good guys" always "accidently" killing more innoncent lives than the 'bad guys' ever do on purpose? It simply doesn't make sense.. until you remove the "cause" or "who's right and wrong" and see it for what it is. Death for power and money. Plain and simple.
One can call it "fighting terrorism" "protecting one's country" or "jihad"...It's still the same crap.
If it comes down to a matter of "us" vs. "them" then I would like to see "us" acting just a bit more civilized, a bit more conscious of our actions.
If someone vadalizes my house, does that mean I need to burn down their entire neighborhood to "get a point across"?
Geez, any of these politicians take a class in political science. That's a zero-sum game and ultimately everyone loses sooner or later.
M. Anthony
Send Flowers
Posted by: J
Posted on: August 2, 2006 11:00 AM
Absolutely true. As for the atomic bomb attacks against Japan in World War II, it can be analysed left and right, but due to the military options at the time and the potential loss of over a million American soldiers, the bomb was the quickest way to end the war. Could General MacArthur managed to placate the Japanese population if conventional forces were used?
The "good guys" are getting more hypocritical as they are faced to killing innocent civilians in order to get to the terrorists or insurgents, but it's hard for them since the "bad guys" are not abiding the engagement rules of war. Proportional response is something that no one really appreciates. I am still a bit antsy about Israel doing a full-scale invasion of Lebanon after two of their soldiers were kidnapped, but then they are doing this for all the years of rocket attacks and kidnappings, and the latest incident was the last straw.
Plus, it's our politicians for being wussies. They call for an international force, but no one wants to contribute, especially the US since we are stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by: jms18
Posted on: January 4, 2008 08:30 AM
Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: Attracted to fame, money and power
Posted on: January 14, 2008 02:13 AM
Could you truly say that most extreme terrorist groups do not care about innocent lives during a crossfire? If you look at any struggle for independence, they usually start nonviolent but these groups often adopt other means because those in power will not bulge. I'm not saying that violence is the way but peaceful protests hardly ever work.