posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 01:46 PM
Yeah, what he is saying is deplorable and my initial response would be to address his post with some mindless ad hominem attack on him, BUT he's got
a valid point... as much as I hate the point, he does have it.
Now, modern warfare has been governed by the Geneva Accord to ensure that military conflicts remain just that... military in nature while attempting
to protect civilians and the innocent. However, the Geneva Accord is an agreement entered into by GOVERNING bodies, not militant groups and
individuals ergo they are not subject to it's mandates. These extremists are so passionate about their cause that they are prepared to do anything
to further it... right, wrong or indifferent.
Why do we have the Geneva Accord? Nagasaki and Hiroshima! Over 100,000 dead civilians. We're not innocent either. Although our nuclear atrocity
ended WWII and probably saved 250,000 lives, did the end really justify the means? Some argue that it may have... and I would suspect that those
would be members of the Allied nations... Just as those members of the terrorist nations would believe that their ultimate end justifies their means.
Think about it... Hate me for the application of logic if you will, and as much as I despise it, it reeks of truth.