Changing Hearts and Minds

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war!...... Washington and the British both prosecuted war under a common understanding called the "Rules of War"
an understanding that was kept in order to minimize the barbarity that is war. I don't think for a moment he would have extended that understanding to Al Queda. The tatic Al Queda uses, is to use war to maximze terror and barbarisim not minimize it. But that's not really the question your asking is it.

---

So you want the US to become like Al Qaeda.

I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hope4dopes

Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war!...... Washington and the British both prosecuted war under a common understanding called the "Rules of War"
an understanding that was kept in order to minimize the barbarity that is war. I don't think for a moment he would have extended that understanding to Al Queda. The tatic Al Queda uses, is to use war to maximze terror and barbarisim not minimize it. But that's not really the question your asking is it.

---

You are a moron. Did you read the VERY LAST PART OF MY POST? In which I asked that very question?!?

Quote:

---

Does anyone think that the example put forth by the US today would be approved of by Washington? Do you think Washington was limiting his treatment of prisoners to the British because they were legal combatants?

---

Idiot.

Now, if you think that's the case, then why would Washington say "Let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army..."?

Think about it. The only reason there for not copying the British army is to show that America was on the side of morality, righteousness, and good. Isn't that correct?

Given that quote, would it make sense to think that Washington was fine with setting an example of respect for regimented soldiers, but would be fine with doing such to an unregulated militia (ie. terrorist)?