>>>>>>>>Your problem with Islam not these terrorists...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why do you blame me? These terrorist were targeting Hindu, Christians, and Jews – all non-muslims. Do you think these killers of innocent people didn’t pray before going on the horrendous terrorist act? They didn’t think that their God approved of what they were about to do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where do Blackwater guys fit? Are they terrorists, just dogs of war aka mercenaries, or them having a contract and paperwork somehow makes them not terrorists by default?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know who Blackwater guys are. But shifting away (or rationalizing that because there is a militant group) the islamic terrorism should be viewed as just another militant group, will never solve the problem. I have recently spent a vacation in Europe and every shopping mall has security people scrutinizing and checking/profiling people. Do you think they are checking for Blackwater guys? And if one of your family goes abroad and stays in a western style hotel, do you worry about their safety because of Blackwater guys? or possibly islamic terror attack?
>>>>
>>>>Blackwater is a private U.S. security firm that has contracted with the U.S. government to provide protection for high level government officials visiting Iraq. Many (most?) of them have elite military backgrounds. They have had a number of incidents in which they have been viewed as overly aggressive, including one notorious case in which a drunken Blackwater employee killed a civilian and was spirited out of Iraq Part of the controversy is that they have been relatively untouchable, including immunity from Iraqi laws. That is ending with the new security agreement in which Iraq takes greater responsibility for its own affairs and the U.S. begins to phase out.
>>>
>>>Um, aren't you missing out a massacre of civilians by them, I seem to recall?
>>
>>IIRC that happened after the Blackwater security people came under fire from a crowd.
>>
>>A little different than picking a place where you can kill the most civilians, arming yourself, picking the best time to do it, and attacking.
>
>Oh, I totally agree with you, and if it weren't for the insurgents and suicide bombers their presence in Iraq wouldn't even be needed. BUT, as I understand it, they did open up on unarmed civilians, with impunity. I think that was the original purpose of mentioning them and "...a number of incidents in which they have been viewed as overly aggressive, including one notorious case in which a drunken Blackwater employee killed a civilian and was spirited out of Iraq..." is a bit of an understatement.


But it is exactly the purpose of those engaging in asymetric warfare to attack from the shelter of "civilian" populations and encourage "overreaction" by those they oppose. The Blackwater people would regard any killing of innocent civilians as a failure, where the "insurgents" regard both their and Blackwater's killing of innocents as a success.

For that reason, implying a moral equivalency (as Dragan did) is not just intellectually lazy but definitely blurs moral distinctions in a way that does credit neither to the argument nor the arguer.