Tex in Tex's definitions
People who feel sorry for certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
"Someone is at the door asking for money to help the poor."
"Oh, it's that humanitarian who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
"Oh, it's that humanitarian who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
by Tex in Tex January 27, 2008
Get the humanitarian mug.An offshoot of the Southern Baptist Convention that is not as committed to defending the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible as the SBC since Evangelicals recaptured the denomination from liberals and moderates. CBF also presents a more egalitarian set of policies on social and political issues along with presenting a hazy view of theology. While most CBF members are not as far to the left as clearly apostate denominational elites such as found in the United Methodist Church, the CBF would be more accurately characterized as part of the mushy middle or moderates.
CBF does not explicitly deny the truth of the Bible, but they emphasize that individual believers can interpret the Bible any way that they choose. This tack on interpreting the Bible can easily provide a liberal Christian with the license to make the Bible into a wax-nose so that one can twist the Bible to justify whatever one wants to read into the text. This loose approach to reading and being instructed in the Bible comes from CBF's so-called "Four Freedoms": (1)Soul Freedom-a direct relationship with God without intermediaries (2)Bible Freedom-each person can interpret the Bible for himself without direction from anyone but God (or who one can easily deceive oneself into believing is God, viz. oneself who wants what he wants and wants it now) (3)Church Freedom-local church autonomy (4)Religious Freedom-as defined by egalitarian leftists at the ACLU. The CBF is affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which opposes such benign policies as allowing for Ten Commandment displays.
CBF does not explicitly deny the truth of the Bible, but they emphasize that individual believers can interpret the Bible any way that they choose. This tack on interpreting the Bible can easily provide a liberal Christian with the license to make the Bible into a wax-nose so that one can twist the Bible to justify whatever one wants to read into the text. This loose approach to reading and being instructed in the Bible comes from CBF's so-called "Four Freedoms": (1)Soul Freedom-a direct relationship with God without intermediaries (2)Bible Freedom-each person can interpret the Bible for himself without direction from anyone but God (or who one can easily deceive oneself into believing is God, viz. oneself who wants what he wants and wants it now) (3)Church Freedom-local church autonomy (4)Religious Freedom-as defined by egalitarian leftists at the ACLU. The CBF is affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which opposes such benign policies as allowing for Ten Commandment displays.
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship member reflecting on Deuteronomy 24 after his wife has burnt the toast: "I see here right in the Bible that I can divorce my wife if she displeases me. So, I shall divorce her and marry my sexier secretary. After she gets some mileage on her, I shall trade her in, too. I am so glad that I read the Bible and follow God's Word."
by Tex in Tex October 4, 2008
Get the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship mug.Congressman from Lake Jackson,Texas in the metro Houston area. He works as a medical doctor. He has been a consistent classical liberal or libertarian as congressman and a presidential candidate (as a Republican in 2008 and a Libertarian in 1988). He holds to a consistent constitutionalist position upholding the Lockean political philosophy that the United States was founded upon. He argues for a nighwatchman view of the State consistent with the Jeffersonaian view of the U.S. Constitution.
On social issues Congressman Paul is a conservative. He supports the right to life and opposes abortion on demand. He also opposes open borders policy on immigration realizing that it is crucial to protect the culture the American political, legal, and economic system is rooted in. Even though some of his supporters are social and moral nihilists, Paul has maintained a consistent social conservatism and realizes that the main source of leftist attack on American traditions has been the Federal government. Even though he supports drug and sex deregulation, he has never endorsed illicit drug use or aberrant sexual practices. His position is to allow nature to take its course with reckless and immoral behavior rather than placing such behavior on par with traditional morality.
This same logic is present in his economic policy. Companies or individuals who can create new products or services that people choose to buy because they perceive these products or services can help them should be free to prosper. Those who offer poor quality products or services should be allowed to fail. Government should only provide basic rules for these pursuits to take place, such as prevention of fraud and enforcing contracts. As Milton Friedman used to say, the market forces people to "put up or shut up." This maxim applies to life-styles as well as business enterprises.
On social issues Congressman Paul is a conservative. He supports the right to life and opposes abortion on demand. He also opposes open borders policy on immigration realizing that it is crucial to protect the culture the American political, legal, and economic system is rooted in. Even though some of his supporters are social and moral nihilists, Paul has maintained a consistent social conservatism and realizes that the main source of leftist attack on American traditions has been the Federal government. Even though he supports drug and sex deregulation, he has never endorsed illicit drug use or aberrant sexual practices. His position is to allow nature to take its course with reckless and immoral behavior rather than placing such behavior on par with traditional morality.
This same logic is present in his economic policy. Companies or individuals who can create new products or services that people choose to buy because they perceive these products or services can help them should be free to prosper. Those who offer poor quality products or services should be allowed to fail. Government should only provide basic rules for these pursuits to take place, such as prevention of fraud and enforcing contracts. As Milton Friedman used to say, the market forces people to "put up or shut up." This maxim applies to life-styles as well as business enterprises.
I am voting for Ron Paul because he stands for the principles Jefferson articulated in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence.
by Tex in Tex January 28, 2008
Get the Ron Paul mug.Tolerance, in the political and social sense, involves two components: 1. Finding others' beliefs or behavior wrong or, in some substantive way, highly objectionable. This fundamental disagreement must be present on issues that really matter, not on issues that are minor or trivial. 2. In the face of this intense disagreement, one refrains from resolving differences by violence or the threat of violence.
Tolerance is NOT a matter of pluralism or multi-culturalism. In order to be tolerant, one does not accept or find others' actions or attitudes a matter of indifference. Rather, a necessary condition for tolerance is rejection of others' beliefs and way of life.
The upshot of tolerance is fighting a continual civil war with those whom one disagrees with in non-violent ways. A society characterized by tolerance will be full of constant confrontation and conflict without threats or violence. As commentator Jonathan Schwartz has argued, tolerance involves challenging the beliefs that others accept without question including issues surrounding sexuality, religion, and race.
Tolerance also is closely related to free speech. Free speech is primarily designed to promote free discussion of controversial questions in politics, religion, and morality. Therefore, speech codes and Politically Correct sensibilities advanced by the left are restrictions on free speech and are forms of intolerance.
Tolerance is NOT a matter of pluralism or multi-culturalism. In order to be tolerant, one does not accept or find others' actions or attitudes a matter of indifference. Rather, a necessary condition for tolerance is rejection of others' beliefs and way of life.
The upshot of tolerance is fighting a continual civil war with those whom one disagrees with in non-violent ways. A society characterized by tolerance will be full of constant confrontation and conflict without threats or violence. As commentator Jonathan Schwartz has argued, tolerance involves challenging the beliefs that others accept without question including issues surrounding sexuality, religion, and race.
Tolerance also is closely related to free speech. Free speech is primarily designed to promote free discussion of controversial questions in politics, religion, and morality. Therefore, speech codes and Politically Correct sensibilities advanced by the left are restrictions on free speech and are forms of intolerance.
I think everything you say and believe is immoral and disgusting. I shall try to eradicate your beliefs from the face of the earth. But, I shall express my disagreement only verbally and refrain from violence to suppress your point of view. Therefore, I am demonstrating tolerance.
by Tex in Tex February 7, 2008
Get the tolerance mug.Capital city of Georgia. Originally named Terminus because of its strategic location for transportation. It became known as Marthasville named for the daughter of an early mayor. In the 1850's the name of the emerging city was changed to Atlanta. There are conflicting stories on the name--one is that Atlanta was named for the ancient lost city of Atlantis while another story is that it is a shortened name for the railroad connection with the West, Atlantica-Pacifica.
Atlanta was and is a central trade and transportation center. The fall of Atlanta in 1864 was key to the Federal effort to preserve the Union. The psychological boost to the Northern cause as well as the economic impact of the loss of Atlanta to the Confederacy insured the re-election of President Lincoln who had faced a serious challenge to his presidency in the 1864 election due to many Northerners' weariness of war. The city was burned by General Sherman after a forced evacuation of the civilians. The Confederates destroyed their armaments adding to the destruction of the city. Civilians had to live in the woods for months after Sherman's destruction of the city.
After the war, the city rebuilt turning to a modern commercial economy encouraged by the vision of Henry Grady. This more business-oriented approach formed the basis of the "New South." The New South replaced the traditional, Jeffersonian view of Southern culture that focused on tranquility and cooperation with a Hamiltonian view that emphasizes competition and frenetic activity. This ethos has been taken up and intensified by 20th Century political, business, and media leaders in Atlanta. The symbol of Atlanta, the Phoenix, is descriptive of how the native Atlantans of the late 19th Century rebuilt the city after its destruction by the Federal government.
The New South philosophy that worked well to rebuild Atlanta from the ashes that the Federal government left Atlanta in has now morphed into a cut-throat, anti-social "ethic" that Jefferson feared would take hold if the Hamiltonian view became dominant. Atlanta is now characterized by greed and aggressiveness. People there are typically hyper-active, aggressive, and detached. The political, economic climate is solidly pro-growth at all costs.
The only social bond in Atlanta is commercialism. Atlanta is a boomtown with people flooding into the area simply to make money. No one has anything in common. People rarely know their neighbors or care to do so.
There is no common culture to facilitate establishing and maintaining contacts and relationships. There is no effort to preserve culture in Atlanta. If anyone attempts to do so, they are likely to be labeled a racist. Mary Rose, Charlie Rose's former wife and a former anchor woman in Atlanta, has taken the lead to restore and open Martha Mitchell's house to the public. The house of the *Gone with the Wind* author was torched several times by arsonists who were determined to destroy one of the few landmarks not already demolished by developers. The fires were likely politically and racially motivated. "White Columns," the studio for Channel 2 that was built in the Greek-revival style was demolished and replaced by a modern building. People who come to town looking for traditional Southern culture and vestiges of Atlanta's past are discouraged from such interests. Tourists will find nothing like the charm and history of Savannah, Charleston, or New Orleans in Atlanta. Virtually all references to Atlanta's past have been torn down or suppressed by this modern cabal to make Atlanta into a monocultural icon.
Atlanta's business, media, and political leaders seem to suffer from a massive inferiority complex trying to curry favor with the leftist elites in the North. They hate traditional culture and actively seek to destroy it.
The city's native population has been overwhelmed by the influx of non-Georgians into the city and its surrounding suburbs. Native Atlantans are few and far between. The city's population is highly transitive. They are from all over the U.S., and since the 1996 Olympics, from all over the world. Consequently, there is very little indigenous culture in the Atlanta area. If the News Media led by WSB and the *Atlanta Journal* find any remnants of Southern culture, they will cast these traditions in racist terms trying to destroy them. At best, the Media ignores Southern traditions. Atlanta is a rootless, colorless place. It is a city "too busy to hate," but it is also a city "too busy for civility and culture."
The natural environment is beautiful. Atlanta is a city in a forest. Earlier developers who were not as greedy and irresponsible preserved the trees and natural sloping terrain. But socially and architecturally, Atlanta is now a vast wasteland. The buildings are modern and ugly. A few of the newer buildings do have some style compared with the boxy, cubist monstrosities that dominate the skyline. Tom Wolfe famously described the art museum as looking like a chemical factory.
As General Sherman said, "War is hell" when criticized for deliberately targeting civilians in Atlanta for bombardment and death. I would add to that insight that living in Atlanta now is hell.
Atlanta was and is a central trade and transportation center. The fall of Atlanta in 1864 was key to the Federal effort to preserve the Union. The psychological boost to the Northern cause as well as the economic impact of the loss of Atlanta to the Confederacy insured the re-election of President Lincoln who had faced a serious challenge to his presidency in the 1864 election due to many Northerners' weariness of war. The city was burned by General Sherman after a forced evacuation of the civilians. The Confederates destroyed their armaments adding to the destruction of the city. Civilians had to live in the woods for months after Sherman's destruction of the city.
After the war, the city rebuilt turning to a modern commercial economy encouraged by the vision of Henry Grady. This more business-oriented approach formed the basis of the "New South." The New South replaced the traditional, Jeffersonian view of Southern culture that focused on tranquility and cooperation with a Hamiltonian view that emphasizes competition and frenetic activity. This ethos has been taken up and intensified by 20th Century political, business, and media leaders in Atlanta. The symbol of Atlanta, the Phoenix, is descriptive of how the native Atlantans of the late 19th Century rebuilt the city after its destruction by the Federal government.
The New South philosophy that worked well to rebuild Atlanta from the ashes that the Federal government left Atlanta in has now morphed into a cut-throat, anti-social "ethic" that Jefferson feared would take hold if the Hamiltonian view became dominant. Atlanta is now characterized by greed and aggressiveness. People there are typically hyper-active, aggressive, and detached. The political, economic climate is solidly pro-growth at all costs.
The only social bond in Atlanta is commercialism. Atlanta is a boomtown with people flooding into the area simply to make money. No one has anything in common. People rarely know their neighbors or care to do so.
There is no common culture to facilitate establishing and maintaining contacts and relationships. There is no effort to preserve culture in Atlanta. If anyone attempts to do so, they are likely to be labeled a racist. Mary Rose, Charlie Rose's former wife and a former anchor woman in Atlanta, has taken the lead to restore and open Martha Mitchell's house to the public. The house of the *Gone with the Wind* author was torched several times by arsonists who were determined to destroy one of the few landmarks not already demolished by developers. The fires were likely politically and racially motivated. "White Columns," the studio for Channel 2 that was built in the Greek-revival style was demolished and replaced by a modern building. People who come to town looking for traditional Southern culture and vestiges of Atlanta's past are discouraged from such interests. Tourists will find nothing like the charm and history of Savannah, Charleston, or New Orleans in Atlanta. Virtually all references to Atlanta's past have been torn down or suppressed by this modern cabal to make Atlanta into a monocultural icon.
Atlanta's business, media, and political leaders seem to suffer from a massive inferiority complex trying to curry favor with the leftist elites in the North. They hate traditional culture and actively seek to destroy it.
The city's native population has been overwhelmed by the influx of non-Georgians into the city and its surrounding suburbs. Native Atlantans are few and far between. The city's population is highly transitive. They are from all over the U.S., and since the 1996 Olympics, from all over the world. Consequently, there is very little indigenous culture in the Atlanta area. If the News Media led by WSB and the *Atlanta Journal* find any remnants of Southern culture, they will cast these traditions in racist terms trying to destroy them. At best, the Media ignores Southern traditions. Atlanta is a rootless, colorless place. It is a city "too busy to hate," but it is also a city "too busy for civility and culture."
The natural environment is beautiful. Atlanta is a city in a forest. Earlier developers who were not as greedy and irresponsible preserved the trees and natural sloping terrain. But socially and architecturally, Atlanta is now a vast wasteland. The buildings are modern and ugly. A few of the newer buildings do have some style compared with the boxy, cubist monstrosities that dominate the skyline. Tom Wolfe famously described the art museum as looking like a chemical factory.
As General Sherman said, "War is hell" when criticized for deliberately targeting civilians in Atlanta for bombardment and death. I would add to that insight that living in Atlanta now is hell.
Tourist arriving in Atlanta: "Where is Gone with the Wind? Where is the Southern history and charm?"
They are gone with the wind.
They are gone with the wind.
by Tex in Tex January 22, 2008
Get the Atlanta mug.Taken to the extreme, an irrational fear of strangers or more broadly, a fear of those who are different. Taken in a more moderate way, a rational fear of those who are different in some significant way, such as race, ethnicity, culture, politics, religion. Since people live together in families and communities where blood ties and cultural similarities foster cooperation, those who are different undermine this social solidarity. The very presence of people who are different in appearance or belief or language make the majority of people in a community wary of those who do not share a common interest in preserving the dominant group.
This fear is justified since people naturally view those who look, believe, and act in a similar manner as extensions of themselves. Since people are naturally selfish, they will lend aid and befriend those whom they see as similar to themselves. Conversely, since people are naturally selfish and seek to dominate others to enhance their own power, they will naturally first seek to dominate those who are different. People who are different are more likely to be seen as objects rather than fellow humans.
When confronted with these threats to social cooperation based on viewing others as objects, it is rational to foster laws, social and economic policy, and attitudes that preserve one's own kind in power. To do otherwise is to hand power over to those who will destroy one's own way of life, culture, and political system.
Political power as well as cultural and social power are zero-sum games. When one group gains in the same geographical region, other groups must lose.
This fear is justified since people naturally view those who look, believe, and act in a similar manner as extensions of themselves. Since people are naturally selfish, they will lend aid and befriend those whom they see as similar to themselves. Conversely, since people are naturally selfish and seek to dominate others to enhance their own power, they will naturally first seek to dominate those who are different. People who are different are more likely to be seen as objects rather than fellow humans.
When confronted with these threats to social cooperation based on viewing others as objects, it is rational to foster laws, social and economic policy, and attitudes that preserve one's own kind in power. To do otherwise is to hand power over to those who will destroy one's own way of life, culture, and political system.
Political power as well as cultural and social power are zero-sum games. When one group gains in the same geographical region, other groups must lose.
Campus Leftist: "Oh, those conservatives really show their xenophobia in opposing open immigration. That shows what closed minds they have and how paranoid they are. Of course, we had to shout down a conservative speaker last night at the lecture series, and drive him off campus in order to promote diversity and pluralism. We would never be prejudiced as those conservatives are."
by Tex in Tex February 1, 2008
Get the xenophobia mug.United States nineteenth century general most well-known for his leadership of the Federal "Western" army in 1864-1865 during the American Civil War. He also fought against Indians in the American West after the war.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General Sherman is the originator of the modern concept of "total war." In moving through Georgia and then into the Carolinas, Sherman devised a strategy of deliberately targeting civilians for attack. He also targeted the homes and personal property of the civilians of the South who posed no military threat to Union forces. Such targeting of civilians for attack had been considered immoral at the time. The goal of such a strategy was purely utilitarian. It did not matter who morally deserved attack on this view, but instead the only question became the total number of lives saved versus lives lost as well as aggregate gains and losses in supplies and property.
During the siege of Atlanta in the summer of 1864, Sherman decided to order the bombardment of distinctly civilian areas of Atlanta with the express purpose of terrorizing the civilian population into pressuring the Confederate military and political leadership to surrender. Civilians, including slaves, were killed as intended by General Sherman and his subordinates. Confederate General John Bell Hood protested the targeted killings of non-combatants as uncivilized and inhuman. Sherman ignored the appeals by Hood to target only Confederate military positions and personnel. His infamous comment in response to such appeals was "War is Hell."
After the fall of Atlanta to Federal forces in early September 1864, the city was occupied for two months. General Sherman ordered the civilian population evacuated by force. After the evacuation of the city by civilians, General Sherman ordered the city to be burned to the ground. The civilians who were forced to leave Atlanta had to live in the woods for months with no provisions or shelter. He then proceeded through Georgia on his way to Savannah burning and destroying towns, farms, and plantations. His men looted the private property and destroyed civilians' homes leaving them destitute and without provision. After the capture of Savannah, which he spared, he continued into South Carolina where his tactics of "total war" accelerated in their savage ruthlessness culminating in the Federal army burning Columbia, South Carolina to the ground.
Such vicious tactics established the mind-set and military precedent for using civilians as pawns in a military conflict. Such tactics had previously been deemed morally unacceptable. The deliberate targeting of civilians for attack was taken up in World War II ending in the deaths of millions. The bombing of European cities by both sides of the war and Japanese cities by the U.S. as well as attacks on civilians in China, the Philippines, and Korea by Japan were consistent with and encouraged by Sherman's precedent. The logic of saving lives in the long-run by these tactics seems to have been refuted by history.
Modern terrorism also follows the same basic strategy of targeting helpless non-combatants for attack in order to terrorize the remaining citizens into capitulation.
The contemporary American practice of only targeting military personnel for deliberate attack reverses the policy of the American government instituted by General Sherman in Atlanta in 1864. The policy of killing sufficient numbers of civilians and destroying their homes to force surrender has been recognized as the mark of only the most barbarous kind of terrorist, such as those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks.
General William T. Sherman meeting Yasser Arafat in Hell: "Good job killing those innocent people...You got what you wanted from the killings...I did the same in Atlanta in 1864."
by Tex in Tex February 2, 2008
Get the General William T. Sherman mug.