Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

So its wrong to kill an innocent person

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
...but its ok to kill a guilty one?

"thousands of innocent citizens have been killed..."

if theyd all been terrorists would that have made it ok?

(hey if this has come up recently just ignore me)
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but its ok to kill a guilty one?

    Fine by me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So its wrong to kill an innocent person

    Really? I thought individual innocence was irrelevant. I certainly seemed to be in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You know, kill and destroy on a large enough scale and perhaps Japan will surrender, thus saving X thousand Allied lives? The 'innocence' of the babies in Hiroshima didn't seem to matter much.

    (And, of course, if you're a biblical literalist, there is no innocence, because all are tainted by original sin.)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Depends just what they are guilty of.
    if theyd all been terrorists would that have made it ok?

    Yup completely OK.

    MacKenZie,

    Its questionable whether the majority of the Japanese were innocents. Of course the kids were but the men and women were complicit with their support of the Empire. It had been proved earlier in the war with Japan that the 'innocent civilians' were a lot more likely to fight the soldiers than surrender. If a group of people are willing to fight the allied troops then they are guilty. Remember that the Japanese society at the time was dedicated to Honour, most would have died before surrendering and did so on the outlying islands.

    I guess innocence is relative.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK, at the risk of getting flamed... <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/wink.gif"&gt;

    When is killing anyone good? Killing is the end of a precious life, regardless of so-called innocence or guilt. I am a firm believer in change. People can change if they want to. Give them the tools to change and they will.

    End of $0.02 ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Change comes out the barrel of a gun.....

    Very little real change comes out of discussion, for instance who here has had their opinions changed by anything that's been said on boards like these, very few I would think.

    Nice idea, never happen
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There is a quote I've been saving for topics such as this one, in response to the post about Japan it goes like this;

    "when you kill one it is a tragedy, when you kill a million it is a statistic"-Josef Stalin

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When is killing anyone good? Killing is the end of a precious life, regardless of so-called innocence or guilt.

    Im not sure anybody here would ever think that killing someone was 'good'. Theres a difference between something being OK and something being good. Sometimes killing is necessary.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It all depends on which religion you follow to whether somebody's guilty or not.

    Muslim - what they did to the world trade tower was coragous in their eyes. They aren't sinners, they're gonna goto heaven.

    Buddist - all life is sacred, there is no right or wrong.

    Christianity - only God can judge, killing is a sin.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ok i know this has probly been done a million times on the WTC related posts but i cant get my head round the logic of this:

    some one has killed thousands of people
    this is very bad
    our nation grieves
    tell ya what, to solve the problem we'll do exactly the same to them
    this is justice

    and i dont have many strong beliefs
    just an open and questioning mind, i change my opinion about things on an almost daily basis
    belief is ignorance
    (i guess you could say thats one of the few beliefs i hold, lol)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Agree that religion can affect judgement, but i aint religious. and i dont think its right to kill people so long as it oculd possibly be avoided, and certainly wrong if they havent been fairly tried and condemned. no, i'm not in favour of the death penalty, yes i do think that sometimes military necessity dictates the taking of someone's life.

    but in the context of this discussion, wouldn't it be far better to round up a large number of terrorists involved, and institute a nuremberg-style trial (but slightly less biased). i know it would be difficult, and that some killing would be necessary to bring it about. but i'd rest more secure knowing that those who perpetrated those attacks were condemned to death by judicial process, rather than the whim of a politician or general. if (and nobody really knows for sure) bin-laden is not guilty in the WTC attack, he's still guilty of a billion and one other terror attacks. but better to find out the truth about this ghastly business, and rest secure knowing that the right men were brought to justice.

    i know this is an idealistic opinion that is largely incompatible with the real world, and that it'll probably be pretty heavily criticised. but, for a society (western democracy, that is) that built itself on 'the rule of law', we should at least try to extend the same courtesy to our foes, no matter how despicable they may be.

    stamping out terrorism is probably impossible, but breaking its back is perhaps possible. if in doing so we destroy innocent people, then we as a society must live with that. i accept that in the case of civilians, collateral damage is largely unavoidable, but if we can PROVE in a court of law that one of the suspects was guilty, then perhaps justice can be done, and we can rest easier.

    as you might guess from my post, i'm slightly ambivalent about this topic (as perhaps are many people). but, food for thought.

    Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    tell ya what, to solve the problem we'll do exactly the same to them
    this is justice

    Well thats not what we are doing. The US want Bin Laden. They asked for him but the Taleban are protecting him. The US are therefore willing to use force to get him. If he dies in the process then so be it.

    Im pretty sure New York doesnt have the death penalty but as its a federal crime im not sure it would be done under NYlaws. Im assuming the federal gov would punish him. Can one of our US friends here tell us what would happen to Bin Laden if he was taken into custody? Would he be executed or locked in prison forever.

    Remember that if Bin Laden was subject to Islamic law then he would be killed immediately.

    I take it youre not a big believer in the death penalty then?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    When an act of war is committed, the nation or nations attacked have the right, under international law, to defend themselves with military force. That can include launching counter-attacks. That is war. It's how it works. It's brutal, obscene, violent. But the results have a tendency to be final.

    Based on the comments by the American President, by Prime Minister Blair, by NATO, by ANZUS...this was an act of war, and the response to an act of war is justified.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no im not exactly a fan of the death penalty

    thats putting it mildly

    but hey thats a whole other story
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If someone takes a life, they do not care that it is sacred and therefore do not deserve for their life to be spared
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SkaPunkSkanker, what do you think we should do ? tell them they've been naughty and hope they won't do it again ? ( That will come across as being sarcastic but I'm not trying to be)

    I'm OK with eye for an eye, only I'd prefer 1000 of their's to 1 of ours & the death penalty is OK too.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i just dont think that repeating the actions that youre condemning is a logical solution.

    using violence does not solve any problems. if anything it creates new ones. whats the use in two families grieving instead of one? what does that solve?

    its ridiculous that the penalty for taking a life is...taking a life.

    to take further life merely makes victims and their families feel better; serving as vengeance.

    justice isnt about making people feel better, about preserving national pride or stamping out something you dont believe in

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    its ridiculous that the penalty for taking a life is...taking a life.

    Fortunately thats just your opinion. Lots of people believe that if you take a life you forfeit your own.
    to take further life merely makes victims and their families feel better; serving as vengeance.

    When did vengeance become a naughty word? Whats wrong with vengeance? I have a feeling you might feel differently if one of your close family were ever murdered.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    of course id feel differently if one of my family were murdered

    but how can you base a judicial decision around the feelings of victims?

    its not what id call fair..and whatever the act, everyone deserves a fair trial
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    but how can you base a judicial decision around the feelings of victims?

    Nobody is basing the decision on the feelings of the victims. You implied vengeance was a bad thing..its not
    whatever the act, everyone deserves a fair trial

    Bin Laden would be given a trial if the Taleban gave him up. The US govt would have to show the courts their evidence if they wanted to convict. Thinking about it, the Taleban protecting Bin Laden would probably be best for Bush. He can then kill Bin Laden without having to show this evidence he has. Seeing as how the Taleban aint letting him go without a fight then we arent likely to see this evidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    Bin Laden would be given a trial if the Taleban gave him up. The US govt would have to show the courts their evidence if they wanted to convict. Thinking about it, the Taleban protecting Bin Laden would probably be best for Bush. He can then kill Bin Laden without having to show this evidence he has. Seeing as how the Taleban aint letting him go without a fight then we arent likely to see this evidence.


    FFS, we can do what we want, WAR has been declared. When war is declared then certain things are thrown out of the window. It doesn;t matter if Bin Laden was guilty or innocent, he is a terrorist. The WEST has declared war against all terrorists and those who harbour them. Or did this little point get missed of from your agenda? Civilian casualties are unfortunate but inevitable, the terrorists killed 7000 civilians in one blow, but now they are going to have to try and kill fully armed soldiers instead.
    And what happenes to the precious civilians in Afghanistan if they themselves take up arms? They immediately become soldiers and legitimate targets. You should all stop whinging about the big bad west possibly killing a goat herder in a shitty country, because I doubt anyone in power gives a toss at this given moment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It doesn;t matter if Bin Laden was guilty or innocent, he is a terrorist.

    Well surely if he is innocent then he is not a terrorist. Thats just common sense.

    As for the rest of your comments..I suggest you re-read my comments on the subject. Ive dozens of times that I support the action Bush is going to take.
    I doubt anyone in power gives a toss at this given moment.

    You are very naive then. I think you will find that all of the coalition leaders are very concerned about killing goat herders. If they kill too many it starts WW3, its that simple.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Quote - Balddog
    Fortunately thats just your opinion. Lots of people believe that if you take a life you forfeit your own.


    OK so then you take their life ...who takes yours and then who takes theirs and does it ever stop, or do you think that you have every right to avenge a death but no-one else has a right to kill you to avenge the death you created?
    Perhaps you don't understand?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    OK so then you take their life ...who takes yours and then who takes theirs and does it ever stop

    Ok I should have specified. If you ILLEGALLY take someones life then you forfeit your own. If you MURDER someone then you pay with your life.

    The people who should take the lives of the murderers are those we elect to run the country. The legitimate government.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere,
    "whingeing.....about the West possibly killing a goat herder in a shitty country"
    Your disregard for human life and general off the scale right wing views might make you a lot closer to the Taliban than youd think.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Has anyone considered this?
    From Inside the Mind of Gene Roddenberry:
    "So two wrongs do make a right, after all?"
    "Two wrong actions - not two wrong motivations."

    Killing a random 'innocent' man on the street for pleasure would usually be considered wrong. Killing a man who was about to launch a missile that would kill millions of 'innocents' would usually be considered right. Same action, different motivation.

    [This message has been edited by MacKenZie (edited 26-09-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    "Its questionable whether the majority of the Japanese were innocents. Of course the kids were but the men and women were complicit with their support of the Empire. It had been proved earlier in the war with Japan that the 'innocent civilians' were a lot more likely to fight the soldiers than surrender. If a group of people are willing to fight the allied troops then they are guilty. Remember that the Japanese society at the time was dedicated to Honour, most would have died before surrendering and did so on the outlying islands."

    You don't really believe that do you Balddog?? As a justification for nuking the shite out of Japan that is. If you had said, "it was war, war is shit, comes with the territory" then I wouldn't have picked up on it. But to suggest that the entire population was wholesale guilty because of intent to defend their homeland is a load of bollocks really. I mean based on the predicted intent?? Of every single man and woman?? Guilty?? They deserved to die by nuclear fire??

    If Hitler had managed to get across the Channel do you think the population of Britain would've laid down and be crushed under the Nazi heel, or would they have resisted?? Would they have deserved to die as well??

    In fact the population had been fed a large amount of propaganda to suggest that any civilians caught by Allied soldiers would be either killed, tortured or raped. To this end when the Allies captured Japan's outlying islands the civilian population did not fight, but committed mass suicide. Entire villages walked off cliffs, or in some examples men killed THEIR OWN FAMILIES before killing themselves to ensure they did not fall into the enemy's hands.

    Neither were they complicit in support of the Empire, they had been commanded by their living God and Emperor Hirohito. Receiving a direct command from your deity may not hold a lot of sway for you or me, but to the population of Japan it was irrefutable.

    Intent of defence of your homeland is not a reason for mass murder.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You don't really believe that do you Balddog??

    Not really, no. But lots do. I happen to believe that while nuking Japan wasnt pleasant, it was VERY necessary. Japan made the choice to launch aggressive actions against other nations and they paid the price.

    Theres a difference between an invasion of your homeland by an aggressor and an invasion by someone trying to put a stop to your own aggression.

    I happen to think that a couple of hundred thousand civilians dying from the bombs was preferable to 1 million + US soldiers along with probably the majority of Japanese civilians who would die rather than surrender. Its a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fortunately not all people believe in this life for a life stuff.
    And.... whan you are directly effecting the lives of innocent people, perhaps even causing the death of innocent people then it is not a just form of retribution.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru

    Fair enough Balddog, in the sense that it saved lives in the long-run I'd have to agree, however it's not too much comfort for those who were there.

    "Theres a difference between an invasion of your homeland by an aggressor and an invasion by someone trying to put a stop to your own aggression."

    Although that's true to the impartial observer, to the civilian-on-the-street I don't think it makes much difference, the outcome is the same.

    But now my hackles have smoothed out again, I'll go back to my more languid style of posting......

    Only users lose drugs
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    You are very naive then. I think you will find that all of the coalition leaders are very concerned about killing goat herders. If they kill too many it starts WW3, its that simple.

    Maybe so about this, but I don't see how my views make me more in line with the taliban? They want to kill normal citizens. People going about their normal lives are targets to them because we are from the West. All I said was I hope that the governments don't concern themselves with protecting Afghanistan civilians who take up arms against us.

Sign In or Register to comment.