Quote:
Originally Posted by 77150
Let's consider an example that can help illustrate the conundrum. For the sake of argument let's say the "war on terror" was based on a terrorist attack on 9/11 that killed 2,000 innocent people.
Now some kids, motivated to fight in this "war on terror" joined the military and went to Iraq or Afghanistan, etc. Why? Because these terrorists killed innocent people and they need to be brought to justice.
However, can you guarantee that those who are fighting "the war on terror" will not themselves kill innocent civilians? Now some soldiers are not prepared for that and they come home with PTSD. You cannot rebuke terrorists without being dragged into their world. That is the price you pay.
|
I would rather not get into the politics and opinions/emotions of terrorism, combating terrorism, the "just war," and other similar things.
I would suggest that war is what it is and there will be unintended casualties. And it has nothing to do with the fact that it was terrorism that brought on the war. If someone's goal is only to punish those who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, war is essentially shooting flies with a bazooka.
Reminds of a comedy routine in which a guy takes a fictional martial arts method called Tai Kwan Leap so he could "beat people up" and "wipe the floor with bozos."
I don't think it is a very good example. Mudslinging in political debates might be easier to understand. Don't just throw mud back. You just fall into the same mud pit. But failing to answer the muddy charges is often not the best answer. The difference is in how the answer is given, not in whether there is or is not an answer.
As for marriage counseling, suffice it to say that there are too many moving parts, coupled with the fact that there are times when two people should not share the same house no matter the desire to maintain some spiritual principle. The best help may do nothing and the worst may be ignored while things turn to reconciliation. Not saying to stay out of helping marriages. Just saying that judging counseling based upon outcomes is, at best, anecdotal. And I'm not sure how to define answering "according to their folly" in that case.