Good point!
Please explain your objection to my "typical sweeping statement" (typical of what, one might well ask?, but I digress): how, exactly, is an author's perception of his own moral qualities (as opposed to the possible moral questions pertaining to the facts at hand) relevant to the facts? Writers on both sides of this question are presumably susceptible to the same thing; is it just people who disagree with your point of view who merit the scrutiny?
My point of view is irrelevant i am not rich or famous
I hate this kind of drivel. The hyper articulate stick poking. The reducto ad absurdism. The chest beating righteousness. Please lock this terrible waste of electrons.
Would be a great subject to have a rational, non emotional discussion on, but i dont think thats a reality here.
If you don't like the enemies actions, or maybe just do not like them..you would call them a name..and 'consider' them outside 'the' laws protection. AND treat them differently..worse(?) then you would treat an enemy you liked. Rather refutes your position....
"That's why we call them 'terrorists' and not 'soldiers'. That's why they're considered 'unlawful combatants' and are not afforded any protection by the laws of war. That's why we call them 'badguys'." Interesting point. If you don't like the enemies actions, or maybe just do not like them..you would call them a name..and 'consider' them outside 'the' laws protection. AND treat them differently..worse(?) then you would treat an enemy you liked. Rather refutes your position.... I'd better drink more..I have a fanboy to keep impressed. J(hic)Groth
