Oh goodie. Now I read (in the UK Times) that India is pointing a finger of blame at Pakistan for the recent train bombings. It's the same thing as in Lebanon. India suspects Pakistan militants for the bombings and in turn the Pakistan government for not controlling them.

I suppose it is. I would expect, then, my government to use whatever means within its power to use that military i have helped fund to annihilate those who found it necessary to target my home.

War is an ugly business which civilians cannot hope to be spared the ugliness of.

Well, I think he fact I asked the question seems to indicate I was curious.

ah, well, that's a cat I simply don't feel like dealing with. It can stay curious.

Yes those fit, but they aren't what I was alluding to. I was alluding to the conventional weapon carpet bombing we had engaged in (both in Germany and Japan) well before the atom bomb came into the picture.

As root definitions this is the folly of fighting a war against a tactic. The firebombings of Tokyo were essentially terrorism carried out by uniformed military (the goal was terrorize civilian populations and therefore weaken military and political leadership). That's why we can never win against "terrorism." Once all ability to resist through conventional means are removed then terrorism is easily justified in the eyes of those doing it. And, sometimes they're right.

That's why I find it hard to universally condemn the PLO (most other groups it is easier since they are involving themselves in something that need not involve them). It is hard to dismiss out of hand the idea that they have a valid complaint and right to resist Israel's presence. If their resistance is just it is hard to argue that they should not use the only form of resistance that is available to them. History isn't always written by the victors but the vocabulary usally is.

That isn't to say I endorse the resistance either. If people would just get over the silly attchment to geography, and the idea of "birthright," and the superstition of religion, then it seems to me that both parties to the violence could find ways to peacefully coexist. So I don't really buy into the idea that violent resistance is justified but many people do and therefore the tactics are justified. But then we're not arguing about methods but axioms. And discordant axioms can never be brought into alignment through discussion.

Nephythys: You're the one who brought god into it. I'd happily leave it out of the equation but if you want it in the middle of things you have to admit it seems to have cocked things up pretty good.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

If civilians are, ipso facto, part of any war, then why is terrorism an unacceptable method (or so we like to claim when convenient) of waging war?

Because it's against us. It's not "terrorism" per say. We'd have a similar reaction if they were carpet bombing New Jersey (well maybe not New Jersey but you get my point) or rolling tanks down main street USA. Any kind of attack on us is unacceptable.

The only issue I see, is that the terrorits when caught are not being treated as prisoners of war but rahter as non-entities without any type of rights. That's not exactly taking the moral high ground.

Jesus Christ! Just a little bit of blasphemy and the board goes down for half-an-hour (or was that just for me, it happened last night as well; the connection kept resetting).

Told you God is petulant.

no- just sick of the crap you say about Him.

Hezbollah Chief Declares 'Open War' With Israel

Did not have a link yet-


On edit-
Link