>From: "Smigrodzki, Rafal" <SmigrodzkiR@MSX.UPMC.EDU>
>>Brian Williams wrote:
>>None of the religions you mentioned with the exception of Islam
>>promises eternal bliss for killing, in fact killing is seen as
>>wrong in all of them. How do you account for agnostics like
>>myself in your theory?
>#### Actually, Christian soldiers of the Crusades were supposed to
>have a guaranteed place in Heaven, if killed in action. Killing
>heretics was a good Christian thing to do, and earned you brownie
>points with god.
You are correct, I was referring to modern religious
interpretations.
I remeber seeing James Burke on one of his shows ( The day the
Universe changed) demonstrating an early gun that fired round balls
for enemies, and square ones for "infidels".
>>I would have to re-read my history about Dresden, but I know both
>>Tokyo and Berlin had military objectives. Hiding your militay
>>elements amongst the civilian population eliminates the
>>protection civilians supposedly enjoy. Besides there was no such
>>thing as precision bombing during WWII.
>#### The reason for carpet-bombing entire cities was largely to
>soften morale of the enemy, and to extract revenge for Coventry
>and London. The civilians had no say about the placement of
>military facilities - they were truly innocent. My mother, my
>girlfriend's mother - they could have been killed, if the bombs
>had fallen a hundred feet closer.
Retaliation is a good motive in my book, not the best one, but a
damm good one.
I know one of the reasons Tokyo was firebombed the way it was, was
that military intelligence indicated that industrial production was
a craft industry in Japan. I remember seeing pictures of burned out
homes with drill presses clearly visible.
And of course after Pearl Harbor it was anything goes....
>>There is a difference between killing enemy soldiers where you
>>yourself are also at some risk, and deliberately murdering
>>unarmed civilians.
>### This is a huge difference, exactly the difference between
>honourable soldiers, and despiccable, callous, dishonorable
>berserker terrorists, true scum of the earth. But what is it
>supposed to have to do with courage?
It's a matter of definition, in the tradition I was trained in
(USMC) it is impossible for someone who commits dishonorable acts
such as these to be considered admirable in any way.
By such tradition it is cowardly to attack unarmed civilians by
definition. The negative elements of the acts outweigh and cancel
out any remotely positive act (ethics).
>>As I indicated, deliberately murdering unarmed civilians is a
>>definition of cowardice (and a criminal act) in my book.
>#### It's a apparent that our definitions of this simple word are
>widely divergent. As I indicated previously, my (and the
>dictionary's ) definition makes no reference to civilians, whether
>armed or not.
>Since trying to continue a discussion about definitions of
>commonly used and usually unequivocal words tends to be fruitless,
>I suggest we disengage at at this point, and let each other use
>his words as he sees fit.
Agreed.
>If anything, let me just mention that I asked a random sample of
>my English-speaking acquaintances about calling the 911 bombing
>"cowardly", and I they replied that this usage would be just an
>empty figure of speech, distinct from the primary meaning.
We agree to disagree, besides we ( U.S.) are engaged in memetic
warfare as well.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT