[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by MagiK: Well here we see a fundamental difference between us [img]smile.gif[/img] In my book, if you call someone out into a war (Jihad or whatever word you wish to use) then you automaticly make it a life and death game. Yep they decided to become involved in a situation that every person in the world probably now knows about and just like combat photo-journalists, you automaticly become a possible target for extinction when you put your self in that position. You make your choice, you choose your actions, you live with the consequences. War is not about saving as many offender as possible to take to trial. War is about death, destruction and finality. this is not a "police action" this is not "cops and robbers", it is war. War is a concept that just seems to escape people who don't have to deal with it some times.

You can't just put up a barrier of "WAR!" in front of yoru argument to stop people attacking it... I really don't see how the fact that this was during a war means that those people should have died, that we really did have proof, or that this will help. Those are my three main objections, and none of them are changed in any way by the presence of a state of war.

So how would you define this concept of "war" then MagiK? Does some kind of mystical power now bestow people to morally do things they were previously unable to do? Does the nature of poverty change, does the nature of grief change, does the nature of proof change? You cannot declare war and then use it as a justification for any action - the fact that this may or may not have been declared a war by the US does not dampen my objections in any way. Neither does it answer them, IMO. Sorry... [img]smile.gif[/img]