I have to say this for the forces arrayed against both us in Iraq and Israel...everywhere: they have a firm grasp on the Western World's self-loathing and knee-jerk simpering as well as our belief in the primacy of basic human rights, our Judeo-Christian based morality, decency, honor, and chivalry which they themselves eschew for savagery, hate, and terror. To wit: they will attack from mosques, then cry like school girls with a skinned knee when we blow said mosque up. They use women and children as shields behind whom they attack and then wail and moan and rend their clothes in front of CNN cameras when the women and children get chopped in the crossfire. They generally engage in despicable behavior which gets their own people, homes, and infrastructure destroyed only to act like the victim, knowing full well that there are folks in the West who will ignore the context and decry the violence done by our side. Whatever else you can say, they play the Western Media like ukulele.

Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics

RSS


What makes a legitimate military target?
Civilian targets (like the only generator in Gaza) will be seen as acts of unjust aggression by the other sides and possibly the global community.
Believe me, I hear what you are saying here. But I am curious what the OmniNerd consensus is on what makes a target legitimate for a military strike. It can be argued both ways for many of these as civilians make use of them for daily life, but terrorist cells and military operations make use of the same infrastructure.
Personally, the only target I would not find viable is the hospital (by Geneva Convention I think). The rest is part of breaking the will of your opposing force. Granted, I am also the one that penned the need to fight immorally to achieve an objective. Found here or here. If one thinks of war as eye-of-sage does, then death is death regardless of how you spin it. May as well achieve that state faster and get it over with.
View Full Discussion