From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Wed Apr 10 2002 - 11:43:11 MDT
You might be right, but here's another take just for the sake of pancrit:
It's a bit more complicated than that. What the media were being told is that
there is no free passage in a given area, and that the rules of engagement are
shifted from "assured threat" to "suspected threat". Like a curfew.
"Clearly identifiable?" Bad guys can print "TV" on themselves with duct tape,
too, you know.
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> How does that give the military the right to shoot at them? Initiating
> force against an unarmed person who is not trying to harm you is
> unwarranted. Cases of self-defense or warfare are one thing. Attacking
> unarmed civilians is another.
>
> > They were sticking tape all over themselves and their vehicles
> > spelling out T.V. like it would somehow save them,
>
> How is this any different than military wearing uniforms? They are
> simply trying to identify which side they are on. When they are clearly
> identifiable and the military attacks them, it is clear what the agenda
> is. Stop the press from reporting the story.
--
butler a t comp - lib . o r g
I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization.
Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:23 MST