Osama Bin Laden offers Truce to the U.S.

[j2k4]

Do you see UBL's methods morally equivalent to ours?

A better question would be to ask you where the methods differ.

Bet we've killed more civilians than him.

Re your sympathy point, you're absolutely correct. Which is why he should be listened to. To do otherwise is to re-inforce the sympathy he will receive.

We have yet to stoop to conducting operations which exclusively target civilians.

I find this to be the most morally reprehensible activity of either side.

As to the other, do you feel we should never have adopted the policy of distaining negotiation with terrorists, or do you feel we should make an exception for the first of what is sure to become a series of exceptions?

[JPaul]

Sadly, we fire bombed Dresden so cannot make any claims re not attacking purely civilian targets.

Hiroshima was also a bit questionable, methinks. I know it had military significance, but the targeting wasn't very specific.

I do not think that one should ever negotiate with terrorists. Which is a really neat position to take. However, much as I am the one oft times accused of living in Disneyland, how do you see this ending. Coz' I don't think you're going to kill them all, old bean.

Neither will you be able to stop every attack they decide to try. Dirty bomb in New York anyone, it's not impossible.

[j2k4]

I don't recall any conflict whose mutual imperative was total elimination of the opposition down to the last living soul (those who have it in for Israel seem to think otherwise), not the least because of the civilian factor.

Civilian deaths are always a source of regret, but I note no curiousity on anyone's part over the lack of this sentiment on Al Qaeda's part.

Al Qaeda has no civilian component, and so would seem to be the ideal case for elimination; however, the burden remains as ever to impress upon the enemy that to continue is simply not worthwhile.

Though their fanaticism (at least on it's face) precludes surrender, we shouldn't feel badly for giving the job of convincing them our very best effort.

BTW-

Times have changed, and I ceased chastizing myself over Dresden, Hiroshima, et. al., long ago.

Demoralizing the enemy is desirable, but, as I said, Al Qaeda has no civilian component, and so is not typical anyway.

[JPaul]

Al Qaeda has no civilian component, and so would seem to be the ideal case for elimination; however, the burden remains as ever to impress upon the enemy that to continue is simply not worthwhile.

Though their fanaticism (at least on it's face) precludes surrender, we shouldn't feel badly for giving the job of convincing them our very best effort.

Tho' I suspect that both Afghanistan and Iraq do have said civilian component. However if we bomb the feck out of them then we may stop the actual enemy from attacking us further.

Good to see you're over Hiroshima btw, that'll never happen again.

[j2k4]

Good to see you're over Hiroshima btw, that'll never happen again.

Lesson learned?

You'd prefer otherwise?

[astrongpc]

i'm not even gonna touch this one..

But topic is very iffy.. lol

[Busyman]

i'm not even gonna touch this one..

But topic is very iffy.. lol

Thanks for sharing you've no comment.

[JPaul]

Good to see you're over Hiroshima btw, that'll never happen again.

Lesson learned?

You'd prefer otherwise?

Read my post as one point, not two.

[j2k4]

Tho' I suspect that both Afghanistan and Iraq do have said civilian component. However if we bomb the feck out of them then we may stop the actual enemy from attacking us further.

Then get with the program, JP; bombing Pakistanis is the latest thing...

[j2k4]

i'm not even gonna touch this one..

But topic is very iffy.. lol

Iffy topics are often quite soft to the touch.