Aurap..siggy ..it some CFR... by kaneman

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Aurap..siggy ..it some CFR...

POSTED BY: KANEMAN
UPDATED: Thursday, November 8, 2007 16:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 9280
PAGE 5 of 5

Thursday, November 8, 2007 12:35 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But Rue wasn't asking about motivation, justification, or mitigation. Rue was asking a simple question, which you seem to have difficulty answering in a straightforward way.

.

I answered the question I was asked.

"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I don't justify the killing of civilians, and that is why your question is false. I do, however, acknowledge that collateral damage ..."

Well, that's the answer then. You do jusify it as collateral damage.

Now I know where you're coming from. It's a healthy double standard. When the US does it, it's OK. B/c it's for a good reason - which is good b/c you agree with it.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 8, 2007 1:42 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Rue,
If I'm reading you wrong please correct me.
You see no difference between collateral damage and intentional acts of terrorism?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 8, 2007 3:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Jihadist
goal - disrupt the western world
method - kill innocent civilians

Bush
goal - "WMD"
method - kill innocent civilians

No, not really.

The more extended answer is this: if someone keeps justifying their actions - we really don't intend to - but they do the same thing year after year and get the same result year after year - lots of dead civilians - do their words count against their deeds ? Good and bad intentions will always out by the results in the long run.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 8, 2007 4:01 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You see no difference between collateral damage and intentional acts of terrorism?

I know you asked Rue not me, but I'd like to give my opinion anyway.

IMHO the answer is: NO.

If "they" kill 300 people on purpose but we kill 6,000 people "by accident" does that mean we're better in some way? In both cases the perp chose to end human lives in order to achieve a goal. The only comparison that can be made between the two is "How many people did you trample on your way to your desired end?"

I know this is counter to a lot of people's thinking. They prolly think- But what about murder? Isn't someone who kills on purpose more dangerous than someone who kills by accident? That's the judgement most people would make, because they're trying to predict future actions based on past behavior. But what about a person who killed 20 people in separate incidents "by accident"? Hmm.... that person seems to have a lot of accidents, don't they? Why do they keep doing the same thing over and over? Can't they learn? Or do they really not value "human life" very much?

So then, what about the USA? Say we kill 300,000 people by accident. Hmmm. Why do we keep doing the same thing over and over? We have lofty goals, but a lot of people seem to get killed on the way. Maybe there was a way that was cheaper in terms of human lives and we didn't take it? Or maybe we just don't value "human life" very much... not as much as we value "freedom" and "democracy"?

I came to this way of thinking because I read a very interesting article a number of years ago having to do with judging the future based on mathematics, versus "clincal judgement". One of the "tests" that they ran was judging how well a prisoner would do on release. They did "prospective studies" on cases for which the outcome was already known (but not to the participants). For the case of the prisoner, they compared the conclusion of the parole board, psychiatrists, behavior in prison, the motivation of the crime, and the prisoner's past behavior.

It didn't seem to matter what motivated the crime, how remorseful the prisoner was, how well he behaved in prison, whether he seemed to have a change of heart, or any other attempted divination of intent: Nothing predicted future criminal behavior as well as past criminal behavior. When you judge a person's (or a nations') behavior in the long run, intentions don't seem to mean much. It is more accurate, and more important, what they do as opposed to what they say they want to do.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE