You Have A CHOICE

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Neb: Correct on number 1, the death of him and a hundred civilians would result in 5000 civilians not being killed, then it's worth it, but if his death would not stop the attacks, then it's not worth it. Wrong on number 2, he dosen't have to take up arms PERSONALLY, just as long as he's the one that makes others pick up arms and kill people then that would be enough.

I disagree with you. If he is not actually doing the action, then we should concentrate on others that are acting as they are the ones that are hurting us. If he's just pushing people to do it, we can always get him later. That's why I personally don't think that the ends justify the means if he doesn't take arms.


------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Neb: Wrong on number 2, he dosen't have to take up arms PERSONALLY, just as long as he's the one that makes others pick up arms and kill people then that would be enough.

Right on! Hitler didn't personally kill any Jews either.



------------------

[Neb]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: I disagree with you. If he is not actually doing the action, then we should concentrate on others that are acting as they are the ones that are hurting us. If he's just pushing people to do it, we can always get him later. That's why I personally don't think that the ends justify the means if he doesn't take arms.

No, if he's making people take up arms he must be wiped out quickly, because for every ten terrorists we kill, he's just made another TWENTY take up arms, however, if we kill him first, they'll have more trouble getting people to take up arms as they lack their "charismatic" leader.

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Neb: No, if he's making people take up arms he must be wiped out quickly, because for every ten terrorists we kill, he's just made another TWENTY take up arms, however, if we kill him first, they'll have more trouble getting people to take up arms as they lack their "charismatic" leader.

And how many terrorist do you think we will bring to arms if we happen to kill lets say 5,000 civilians that Bin Ladden happened to be travelling with? I'm not debatting wether or not he should be killed. Of course he should. I'm just of the opinion that you would be creating a bigger problem if you kill him and many other civilians at the same time.

Think of it this way: why not just go in and drop a few A-bombs around Afghanistan, if he's still there, we'll get him sooner or later!

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential

[Neb]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: And how many terrorist do you think we will bring to arms if we happen to kill lets say 5,000 civilians that Bin Ladden happened to be travelling with? I'm not debatting wether or not he should be killed. Of course he should. I'm just of the opinion that you would be creating a bigger problem if you kill him and many other civilians at the same time. Think of it this way: why not just go in and drop a few A-bombs around Afghanistan, if he's still there, we'll get him sooner or later!

I'm not saying that any amount of civilians should be killed just to kill Bin Laden, but if only ten or so civilians were in the area then I would have no problems ordering the airstrike, but if it was 5000 civilians then I would NEVER do it, first of all, 5000 lives is too big a price to pay to kill Bin Laden, second, as you said, THOUSANDS of people would be up in arms if it happened, if not tens of thousands.

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Neb: I'm not saying that any amount of civilians should be killed just to kill Bin Laden, but if only ten or so civilians were in the area then I would have no problems ordering the airstrike, but if it was 5000 civilians then I would NEVER do it, first of all, 5000 lives is too big a price to pay to kill Bin Laden, second, as you said, THOUSANDS of people would be up in arms if it happened, if not tens of thousands.

So where do you draw the line?

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential

[Neb]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: So where do you draw the line?

There is no line to draw, it merely appears when I hear the numbers and the facts associated with them, I cannot possibly say where to draw the line for the amount of civilian deaths that Bin Laden is worth, though I CAN definetily say that it is LESS than a thousand, also, if they're one thousand murderers who have broken out of a prison, they're still civilians, but then, in my opinion, they're worth less, there are SO many things to work into the calculations, are the civilians criminals? Are they smugglers? Are any of them children? Might any of them be terrorists in disguise.

[Ryanamur]

See, I consider the lives of others just too valuable for that. Of course, if they're all terrorist, that makes the equation easy. But as soon as you bring in people that are totally unaware of the situation (true innocents) then, I could not bring myself, ethicly speaking, to do it.

I would let him go and make sure I don't loose sight of him.

Now, the new question would be: What do we do about Afghanistan if Bin Ladden isn't there anymore? Do we just keep bombing the crap out of the Taliban or we consider the issue done with?

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential

[Neb]

Originally posted by Ryanamur: See, I consider the lives of others just too valuable for that. Of course, if they're all terrorist, that makes the equation easy. But as soon as you bring in people that are totally unaware of the situation (true innocents) then, I could not bring myself, ethicly speaking, to do it. I would let him go and make sure I don't loose sight of him. Now, the new question would be: What do we do about Afghanistan if Bin Ladden isn't there anymore? Do we just keep bombing the crap out of the Taliban or we consider the issue done with?

If Bin Laden leaves, we take a look and see if the Taliban are violating any human rights, if they do, we continue to bomb the crap out of them and then give Afghanistan a new government which may or may not be better but will reflect the western "virtues".

If the do NOT violate any human rights, then we leave Afghanistan and consider the bombings to be enough punishment for not handing over Bin Laden, this may or may not be correct, but this is probably what will happen.

[skywalker]

So then who do we bomb next?

Mark