Hello? If Nazi’s occupy Paris and we blow them up – it’s the Nazi’s fault that French men, women, and children die?

Yes, of course. Are you having trouble answering these questions?

“So we kill the jihadi, the baby but, the mom survives as an amputee.”

The jihadi cause this, not us. If we don’t strike the jihadi, they will kill us AND whoever else they want anyway. You need to read up on the history of Islam. Unfortunately you have to read between the lines of many sources to even begin to understand. Like most everything in these politically polarized times. The most frank pro-Western writers that I certainly recommend you read are Ibn Warraq and Bat Y’eor. Oriani Fallaci for the cliff notes version. Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch for daily news.

“Look at the 1600 years prior to Islam – seems pretty violent before Mohammed threw his cock in the ring.”

Odd, that timeline doesn’t mention Islam and only uses the word Muslim twice. Anyway, why does it matter who fought over what before Islam? Jihad and sharia threaten civilization right now. That we can trace its history 1400 years back only makes the threat more certain and, thankfully, predictable. We know the duplicity and depravity of the jihadis has no bottom. Their faith in the supremacy of Allah and the infallibility of the Koran is unshakeable. They want to spread this faith, forcably by active jihad when possible, to the entire planet.

“I guess youre the “good guys” if you are on the US payroll”

Of course there are sides. I want civilization to win.

“You are reading one piece that specifically concludes that “war is not a solution for terrorism” by pointing out the grim reality of modern warfare. There is no hypocrisy or mendacity; You infer it by pointing out the things left unsaid to bolster your reasoning for dismissing his point of view.”

Zinn points out the grim reality of modern warfare, which no reader would argue. It is a tautology. He then concludes (because you can conclude whatever you like from a tautology) that war = terrorism. The logic in this work of Zinn’s is flawed, regardless of what he has written elsewhere.

Too bad Saddam didn’t get an Alpha Whiskey Romeo like Zarqawi.

Hello? If jihadis hide behind baby carriages and we blow them up – its the Jihadis fault the baby died? Making weapons that discriminate “better”? So we kill the jihadi, the baby but, the mom survives as an amputee.

Im concluding that when war is inevitable, the reprehensible characteristics of war follow. The discriminant “smart-bombing” conducted by the US during the Balkans War had its problems (unless you buy the theory the Chinese embassy was targeted on purpose). Certainly the indicriminant bombing by BOTH hezbollah and Isreal are reprehensible.

“The history of jihad is not simple. You dismiss it as absurd because you still don’t understand much about it.”

– His knowledge of history does not appear to include any understanding of … from Spain to India.”

Who said “jihad” is absurd – blaming Islam and dispatching the other reasons is what I refer to as absurd.
Same website for hizbollah:
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/palestine.html
Look at the 1600 years prior to Islam – seems pretty violent before Mohammed threw his cock in the ring.

On Hezbollah:
I guess youre the “good guys” if you are on the US payroll – see Taliban reference:
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=11626
Of course once you step out of line youre yesterday’s dog meat.

I faintly remember US arm sales to Iran in the 1980’s…

File under : You reap what you sow.

There is a distinction between warrior and terrorist depending on how wide your paint brush is…

American Indians?
Sherman?
British (Boer War)?

… or which side youre on.

The same goes for “state-sponsored” – do we “sponsor terrorism if we give a group “humanitarian aid” and they perform terrorist acts?

Of course this is a complex issue…

Discriminating:
leftists… logic distorted; moralizing hypocritical and aims obfuscated.

Does that imply rightists are clearly logical, moral and transparent?

Zinn the hypocrite bomber? (Read Zinn’s A just Cause, Not a just War – minor reference to WWI and Vietnam targeting civilians; also, infers the military targets exact heavy price on civilians through indirect losses (disease, starvation, etc)

“The US Congress’…” Attack on Zinn’s failure remark?

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. (well that was a failure)

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
2600+ US military dead; 19000+ wounded; increasing # of jihadis; decreasing foreign diplomatic stature; civil war (or if you prefer “increased sectarian violence”).

But at least we now know Iraq is in compliance with the UN resolutions [http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html]

A super duper failure would be if we watched a nation go through a democratic election, elect extremists into office and subsequently punish the country for doing it (FU Hamas).

“Zinn seems to believe that civilized armies…” Zinn would say we go into war knowing the jihadis will force us into causing collateral damage that exceeds the damage caused by the jihadis.

“It also seems safe to assume Zinn knows nothing…” Zinn recognizes the problems with dictators (and would add that western nations have a knack for supporting these dictators while they are useful)and suggests stopping totalitarian regimes (like Hitler) from expanding is necessary. But the actions we take to conduct the war can be futile, cause greater loss of life and can reverse the intended outcome.

“Zinn treats words and numbers like … as a moonbat hero.” You are reading one piece that specifically concludes that “war is not a solution for terrorism” by pointing out the grim reality of modern warfare. There is no hypocrisy or mendacity; You infer it by pointing out the things left unsaid to bolster your reasoning for dismissing his point of view.

Of the 4-6 editorials Ive (now) read of Zinn, I understand it, but disagree with it on the basis that I feel sometimes war is a necessary alternative to failed diplomacy, “appeasement” or isolationism. It doesnt change my distaste for it.

Iraq and Lebanon are good examples where war WAS not the answer.

Cheney proposed the “1% doctrine” – if there’s just a 1 percent chance of the unimaginable coming due, act as if it is a certainty. It’s not about ‘our analysis, It’s about ‘our response.’

I guess Iraq was what – about 0.5%?

I think I understand Zinn’s anti-war psyche well enough.

When you make weapons that can target better, you are making them discriminate better, ie. they are not indiscriminant.

The history of jihad is not simple. You dismiss it as absurd because you still don’t understand much about it. Do you?

Ditto on Hizballah. Please read this.

I’ll stand by my distinction between warriors (meaning civilized ones) and terrorists.

If you give me an example of my “discriminating for the sake of bolstering rhetoric” I’ll try to explain it.