Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

So its wrong to kill an innocent person

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Maybe so about this, but I don't see how my views make me more in line with the taliban?

    Are we reading the same thread here? You keep saying things and I havent a clue where you get them. Who said you were in line with the Taleban? Im confused.
    All I said was I hope that the governments don't concern themselves with protecting Afghanistan civilians who take up arms against us.

    Well no, you didnt. You said if someone takes up arms they are a legitimate target(which I agree with) and then you said we shouldnt care if the west kills innocent goat herders.

    I have NO problem with killing every single member of the Taleban and ALL who support them. I do have a problem with deliberately trying to kill the civilians in Afghanistan simply because they are there. Im not arguing the case for humanitarian reasons, but rather for common sense. If we start killing civilians willy nilly then we are going to alienate every Muslim on this earth...That was 1.2 BILLION people last check.

    You seem to have me pegged as something im not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No one or any Gov't has said it wants to kill all Afghans or muslims.

    The fight is against the terrorists and those that help them.

    No one here has yet come up with a realistic alternative approach.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by peacechild:
    No one or any Gov't has said it wants to kill all Afghans or muslims.

    The fight is against the terrorists and those that help them.

    In which case, a large portion of our offensive energies do have to be directed against Afghans (esp. the Taleban) and muslims (esp. the institution of Islam).

    No matter how many terrorists we kill, more will take their place, just like the famous Hydra. To 'seal the necks,' as it were, we need to attack the very state of mind that leads to the carnage of September 11: blind faith.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But blind faith can be stopped by other measures than blowing them all up!

    Ever heard of education? Yes it's slow... but it's the only type of change that really works

    End of $0.02 ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ever heard of education? Yes it's slow... but it's the only type of change that really works

    Off you trot them. Lets just watch and see how long you or any teacher lasts while trying to teach Afghan kids that Islam is not the true religion and they shouldnt blindly follow it...

    My condolences to the families of any who try.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you cant force people to do what you want
    people should be presented with the options available. given time people will make their own choices. and if they still differ from yours? who's to say theyre wrong and youre right. maybe youre both just different
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    Off you trot them. Lets just watch and see how long you or any teacher lasts while trying to teach Afghan kids that Islam is not the true religion and they shouldnt blindly follow it...
    I'm not suggesting going in there and teaching Islam is not the true religion. I am suggesting that teaching the kids that there are other religions and how they work. They can then decide that Islam is for them if they like, but they will know that Christianity/Judaism is not a whole world of people trying to blow up Islam! And I'm willing to bet most of them probably haven't even heard of Buddhism or Hindu.


    End of $0.02 ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm not suggesting going in there and teaching Islam is not the true religion. I am suggesting that teaching the kids that there are other religions and how they work.

    Even so, this is the Taleban we are talking about. You WILL be put to death if 'they' see it as teaching that Islam isnt the true religion. I do believe there are currently several Christians currently in prison there for practicing their faith. I dont know if they were trying to convert people or what but it proves that the Taleban are not willing to let their people hear anything but the word of Islam.

    Wanna tell me the situation involving girls and their education? You cannot teach a people whos government doesnt allow them to be taught.

    You cant educate the people while the Taleban are in power and you cant get rid of the Taleban without educating the people.

    I believe thats a vicious circle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by SkaPunkSkanker:
    using violence does not solve any problems.

    Really? There are millions of dead that would disagree. And many alive that would also disagree.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How can a dead person disagree or agree with anything
    perhaps they are dead BECAUSE they disagreed?

    the moral?
    Agree with absolutely everything 100% all the time
    whatever!

    [This message has been edited by byny (edited 04-10-2001).]
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I suggest to you that extreme violence solved the problem of the Nazis in power in Germany - or have you forgotten that?

    I think that the people of gave up their lives would believe that it solved the problem - otherwise they wouldn't have put them on the line in the first place.

    My grandad was proud that he had given up six years of his life in order to ensure that the freedoms for his family were mantained. He missed six years of seeing hios children grow up, he lost six years of his marriage and those years were never given back to him, but - to him - it was worth it.

    You take these freedoms, which he and his generation won for you, for granted. Shame on you.

    "Perhaps my best years are gone, but I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now." - Samuel Beckett
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do not think I need to feel shame
    My granddad too was in the British Army, captured in Greece and kept in a prisoner of war camp in Germany for 4 years.
    But... the weapons we have now are so destructive I cannot support their use.
    Yes - the USA and Allies may not bomb Afghanistan, as has been said on other threads but my fear is that they might!

    I still think it is wrong to kill an innocent person, and I would hate for the Afghani people to be blown to pieces in an attempt to stop terrorism.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by byny:
    I do not think I need to feel shame
    My granddad too was in the British Army, captured in Greece and kept in a prisoner of war camp in Germany for 4 years.

    So what you are telling him, and his generation, is that you are grateful for the right which they fought for you to have. However, not only would you not fight if the need arose, but you also believe that their cause was not a worthy one. Afterall you have said that there is no cause for which you would kill or die. I'd say that you shame some memories...

    "For their tomorrow, we gave our today"

    But... the weapons we have now are so destructive I cannot support their use.
    Yes - the USA and Allies may not bomb Afghanistan, as has been said on other threads but my fear is that they might!

    I still think it is wrong to kill an innocent person, and I would hate for the Afghani people to be blown to pieces in an attempt to stop terrorism.

    Which weapons are you talking about? Hijacked aeroplanes perhaps - they killed over 5,000 people - does that make them weapons of mass destruction?

    How many lives does a weapon have to take before it becomes unacceptable? How many lives does it have to SAVE before it becomes acceptable again?

    So what WOULD you do, to stop terrorism. What lengths would YOU be willing to go to?



    "Perhaps my best years are gone, but I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now." - Samuel Beckett
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MOK is right, a ground war would have the potential to cause far more casualties, our own soldiers, and besides, just because shooting people is slower doesnt mean you wont have the same result in the end. The nukes in Japan killed a couple of thousand people. The Nazis killed millions using traditional bullets and gas.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by byny:
    I still think it is wrong to kill an innocent person, and I would hate for the Afghani people to be blown to pieces in an attempt to stop terrorism.

    same here, but i would think it wrong only if they were an INNOCENT afghan. those who willingly take up the cause against western civilisation, and who collaborate with bin laden and who knows who else, have placed themselves in the line as soldiers. that includes the taliban. so, although it is regrettable that they may have to die, they could choose to surrender, lay down their arms, and stop the terror. but they wont, so we have to act.

    NATO will (i'm pretty sure) not carpet bomb kabul, or anything like that. precise military action, founded on good intelligence, can achieve the objectives with minimal civilian casualties. follow that up with humanitarian aid, and pressure for a more liberal government, and we may make things better for the people of that already war-ravaged land.

    Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    So what you are telling him, and his generation, is that you are grateful for the right which they fought for you to have. However, not only would you not fight if the need arose, but you also believe that their cause was not a worthy one. Afterall you have said that there is no cause for which you would kill or die. I'd say that you shame some memories...

    My gradfathers fought in the war to end wars, to rush gladly into a war, as so many on this board seem to want to, would be disrespectful to their memories.

    Which weapons are you talking about? Hijacked aeroplanes perhaps - they killed over 5,000 people - does that make them weapons of mass destruction?
    four planes managed to demolish 3 and a bit buildings, I wouldn't call that mass destruction. 7000, or whatever the latest estimate is certainly makes them a weapon of mass murder. How many would have died had Fat Man arrived halfway up the north tower?

    How many lives does a weapon have to take before it becomes unacceptable?
    one.
    How many lives does it have to SAVE before it becomes acceptable again?
    Having used an unacceptable weapon, how much must you pretend it was the only way of saving those lives, and for how long?

    It is not the weapon, so much, that is unacceptable, but the intent behind it. A scalpel can save save or take a life. The artifact itself is blameless, but the hand that holds it must be responsible.

    Landmines are very unacceptable, they are badly targetted, and carry on killing long after the conflict has ended. Fat Man and Little Boy again were badly targetted, and their capacity to keep on killing may have been unexpected, but to consider their use OK requires some uncritical acceptance of militarty propoganda. The bouncing bomb was poorly targetted, but its action was short lived, and provided useful morale adjustments on both sides; was it acceptable?

    welcome to ethical algebra. Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

    So what WOULD you do, to stop terrorism. What lengths would YOU be willing to go to?
    Would YOU be prepared to EXAMINE the situation from ALL sides. To find out WHY communities will turn a blind eye to terrorists, while not accepting terrorism. To conceed that your side is NOT as blameless as you like to think?

    Anyway to answer your question. I hope I would be ready to risk or give my life to stop terrorism, and I hope I would not take or risk a life to indirectly prevent terrorism. Wether I would take or risk a life to prevent an act of terror weighs heavilly; I would probably do so, but the price would be high.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I HAVE looked at the situation from both sides, if you read what I write you will have seen that I am a critic of US policy, however that does not excuse the actions of Bin Laden.

    We know that what Bin Laden wants is to bring down both the Saudi and US Governments. No other agenda and he claims that he does this from a religious perspective.

    HOW can you have a dialogue with a man whose stated aim is to see you dead. He wants the 'western' civilisation extinguished. Hard to negiotiate from there, isn't it?

    I believe that the west has alot to learn about it's foreign policy, and needs to consider other cultures rather than ride roughshod over them. But, unlike you, I do not believe that there is any room for discussion between these two opposing views. Remember, the rights you have used to post your comments are the ones Bin Laden doesn't want you to have. No opinions but what HE believes the Koran gives you. It's easy to hide behind the right of free speech, whilst you still have it!

    Your comments are similar to those used by Neville Chamberlain and the appeasers before WW2, they thought they could negotiate with Hitler. They failed. There are some people who just will not accept middleground on a issue, when it means so much to them.

    Fat Man and Little Boy were well targetted, In less than a week WW2 had ended. Pretty decisive result. Where does your fear of atomic weaponry come from? These events perhaps? Why did the USSR and US not fight in the sixties? The fear of atomic warfare perhaps? For each argument there is a counterside...

    Bouncing Bomb? Love it, morale boost for the UK. Can't fault that. Did it achieve anything militarily? Not in the short term, but look what poor morale did to the US army in Vietnam...

    If you grandfathers fought in WW2 they fought in a war to stop the advance of an oppresive regime - not to end all wars. If they fought in WW1 then they fought to stop empire building. It was only AFTER the event that it was called the war to end all wars. The human race was naive enough to believe that we could all live in harmony...

    Now where have I read THAT sentiment this week?

    Don't you think that your very existence is something worth fighting for?

    "Perhaps my best years are gone, but I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now." - Samuel Beckett
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    (btw, this is off on a tangent, more directed at the quoted comment specifically rather than the topic generally)
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent:
    Don't you think that your very existence is something worth fighting for?

    My personal existence? Not terribly. I place a certin amount of stock in it, of course - otherwise I'd have starved to death long ago - but I never delude myself into thinking that what is good for me is good, and what is bad for me is bad.

    After all, what am I alone? Homo sapiens is a social species - total hermits are very rare among our kind. To attach primacy to my existence over all others in all situations is blind and idiotic in the extreme.




    You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics. But not much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by MacKenZie:
    (btw, this is off on a tangent, more directed at the quoted comment specifically rather than the topic generally)

    My personal existence? Not terribly. I place a certin amount of stock in it, of course - otherwise I'd have starved to death long ago - but I never delude myself into thinking that what is good for me is good, and what is bad for me is bad.

    After all, what am I alone? Homo sapiens is a social species - total hermits are very rare among our kind. To attach primacy to my existence over all others in all situations is blind and idiotic in the extreme.


    true. but in a 'him or me/life or death' situation, its generally me that gets priority. sorry <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"&gt; there are exceptions of course, but i think Orwell was right - if we really are pushed to the limit, most people will betray even those closest to them. call me pessimistic, but thats my opinion.

    Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    By 'your very existence', I wasn't just referring to the person singular, but also everything you hold dear. The rights you have, the food on your table, the PC you use, the air you breathe, the thoughts you have, the opinions you can voice...

    If you would not fight for what makes you you then what would you fight for?

    Existence isn't just about being alive it about LIVING...

    "Perhaps my best years are gone, but I wouldn't want them back. Not with the fire in me now." - Samuel Beckett
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unfortunately my opinion differs from yours in that I believe that guns and bullets should be banned. A weapon that is designed to kill just one person should be banned.
    A hijacked aeroplane was not designed to kill it has just been used to do so. It's not the plane that is at fault but the people who had the belief to use it in such a way!
    People have guns are prepared tio kill with them - and I think they should be banned
    You may ell me I am wrong to feel that way, just as I think you are wrong to feel the way you do about keeping them. Sorry about that, it's just the way it is.
    I would not fight in a war and My grandfather did not chose to either, he was told he HAD to. Big difference then from now!
    I have the choices, I can decide what I want to do - the state cannot control me like they did my grandfather.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A weapon that is designed to kill just one person should be banned.

    A gun is just an object. Its designed to fire a bullet at a target. That target is up to the person whos firing it. What about the various sports we play that use clubs? They were originally used only as weapons. Should we ban Golf? Cricket? Baseball? How about Archery? My god, that barbaric sport acutally fires huge arrows at people, bows were specifically engineered to inflict massive wounds on people. Bows and Arrows are just as much a weapon as a gun. Sounds silly doesnt it but thats the same logic you use to justify banning guns.

    If people want to kil each other they will do so if they have a gun or not. You only need to look to Africa to see the damage that can be done with simple machetes and other simple weapons.

    "Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Oh dear!
    There's no convincing you and there's no convincing me.

    If I was ruler of the world (!)
    I'd ban bullets
    If you were ruller of the world (!)
    you'd hand them out freely to everyone I guess
    - or would there be restrictions on which race/religion/colour/ mentality/ political party/sex... could have them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by byny:
    - or would there be restrictions on which race/religion/colour/ mentality/ political party/sex... could have them?

    of course, women not being able to shoot straight would be given cap guns.

    waits for torrent of abuse......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If I was ruler of the world (!)

    Thats the point though isnt it..There is NO ruler of the entire world. This world isnt united, its a terribly dangerous place. The events of the last month have shown this. How can you take guns away from people when there are other people who still have guns out there in the rest of the world.

    Would you please explain your last comment there. The one about restrictions. I dont like the tone of that statement.

    "Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If there had never been wars there would have been very little technological development. Many of the inventions we take for granted today were invented to make war with or for military purposes.
    Without competition there is no development.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My explanation

    Can I use an example

    Once apon a time there was a woman calle Marie stopes who set up clinics to offer advice to women who found themselves pregnant unexpectantly, in particular these clinics were aimed at working and 'lower' class women who in Ms Stopes' eyes may have difficulty with raising children. These days, these clinics are used far and wide throughout the UK. The advice offered includes information about sexual health, contraception and abortion. All very good and helpful I'm sure ...
    However, there was a more sinister reason behind marie Stopes idea. In her mind there were certain 'kinds' of women who should not be allowed to have childre, who should be encouraged not to.
    In her mind these women may bring up retarded, underdeveloped, 'wrong' children.

    That is they were wrong in her eyes, in her perception of what good parenting was.

    The danger is that people do think that because they think something is right, everyone should be forced into whatever action the other person believes in All people have a tendancy to think like this I guess, but that doesn't make it right.
    Who is to say that they are right and you are wrong.

    My suggestion is that even if you think that everyone should have a gun, is therre a possibility that you may think - 'well ...everyone that I think should have a gun'?
    A bit Four legs good two legs bad really.

    I could be wrong though .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My suggestion is that even if you think that everyone should have a gun, is therre a possibility that you may think - 'well ...everyone that I think should have a gun'?


    The only 'type' of people that I would discriminate against when it comes to gun ownership are criminals and the mentally unstable.

    The fact remains that unless this world suddenly becomes civilised to the point where there are no more tyrants, no more war, no more crime, no more injustice then guns are necessary.

    Until you can be sure that ALL guns across the world will be removed then its immoral to remove guns from one group and not another.

    "Let's roll......" Todd Beamer, American Hero
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fair enough on the last point
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well it is like this, what gives any human being the right to judge another human being. Is it because they are rich, educated and so on. No one person is better than anyone else so if everyone followed this principle then things in this world would be a lot more peaceful.

    http://bpbfb.tripod.com
Sign In or Register to comment.