Quote:
Originally Posted by kevmartin  Yep, that's the one. I do have a bad memory, but I don't think it has betrayed me much if at all on this occasion. My point (that I said your statements in this thread felt incongruous with) was your statement you would choose to participate in the enforced society until a legal opportunity was given to you (by the invading force) to effect change. Which I took to mean you would not be willing to compromise your moral standpoint, step over 'the line', given harsh, enforced, circumstances. While the situation is not identical to the topic of this thread, it has major parallels - which is probably why I chose to say it "seemed a little incongruous" rather than something like "directly contradicts". |
Another couple key points of clarification are that:
A: If my country were under the opression of a home grown dictator, the invading force (who I said I'd join) would have the moral high ground.
B: The Indian women are not targetting innocents like the animals did just today in Iraq. First the woman blew herself up along with a lot of innocent Iraqis, then when people ran in to help the wounded, her partner blew them up. The Indian women are going directly after the perpetrators who pose a threat. Were I ever to resist an invasion force, no, I'd never do it by blowing up innocents.