Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to "terror is as terror does"

re: "terror is as terror does"
gbaikie — (archived)

"Basically you're taking the morally craven position that the end justifies the means"
I'm not taking a "morally craven position". I'm correcting your misinformed impression of the definition of the word "Terror". Because it seemed to me that you think terror is "really scaring someone" and therefore with this childish definition you can't even begin to address this issue.

"Seems, gb, that not even the Pentagon would defend its use of napalm as shamelessly as you would. They'd rather lie than admit to it, which is to their credit, in a twisted way; but what's your excuse? "

As Miltary has stated it doesn't use napalm. And is a lie to state that miltary does continue using napalm. Napalm is a specific thing. Sometimes people use terms loosely therefore it's understandable why someone might think the US miltary still uses napalm. But actual true fact is the miltary not longer uses napalm. And it is it probably illegal according to some law passed by the Congress for the miltary to use napalm. Therefore it's understandable why the Pentagon would correct the reporter [reporters generally seem to like to promote stories about how the US miltary does things illegally- it's similar to "man bites dog type stories".] Now, the Congress isn't likely to pass laws against the Miltary using incendiaries bombs, but if it did, the miltary will follow the laws passed by Congress. Of course, it possible if Congress restricted the miltary in this fashion, that several generals may resign in protest- at least, I can hope that some would have the balls to do this.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (183 posts)