The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> who started attacking the innocent?

who started attacking the innocent?
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Monday, February 21 2011, 13:59:16 (UTC)
from *** - *** - Windows XP - Safari
Website:
Website title:

In olden days armies met in the field to settle things...afterwards the winner did what he liked with the losing side, including innocent civilians. Then there was siege warfare in which the defending side were all under attack, soldiers as well as their families....but, I think, not till the US cavalry in its Indian Wars did soldiers deliberately side-step warriors to go after the women and children....this was one of the things which demoralized Native Americans...this was a kind of warfare they didn't understand...warriors were supposed to be brave and heroic...they could see no glory, only shame, in attacking children, while avoiding men.

Marauders like Genghis Khan and Atilla and Timurilang massacred populations, but usually only if cities held out...those who surrendered were often left with their lives...it was the coming of the airplane and aerial bombing that the massacre of civilian populations became a settled tactic of war....for the first time, since the Indian Wars, the target was civilians....all sides did it, from the London Blitz to Berlin, Tokyo and ultimately Hiroshima and Nagasaki.....those were all campaigns against women and children...so Muslims are hardly the first to after innocent civilians...it's long been a hallowed part of Christian warfare.

The only thing left to smear Muslims with is calling them "suicide" bombers....we certainly can't fault them for killing innocent civilians...the West has been doing that for a few hundred years. But, because the West has also been the arms manufacturer of the world with a preponderance of sophisticated weaponry no Muslim country can begin to match, or buy....individuals are left to their own devices and, from sheer desperation, use their own bodies to deliver the bombs...does anyone doubt that they would far rather have helicopter gunships?

Does America mean that if they were under attack by heavily superior forces we would expect our people NOT to take desperate measures? Will Americans only admit to beating up vastly weaker people...like a school-yard bully? Would they NOT go up against superior forces, even at the certain loss of their own lives? What kind of patriots do we really have...the kind that will only fight when they are sure to win...or run very minor risks? Are we proud that we would NEVER resort to such desperate measures as giving up our own lives to defend our families and get at those who would harm them?

I thought we believed that no man hath a greater calling than he who would lay down his own life for others? Didn't Jesus teach self-sacrifice? Wasn't his a "suicide mission"?



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9