well they said 9 in 10, they probably just rounded it up. Fairly acedemic as it's very high whatever.
Printable View
well they said 9 in 10, they probably just rounded it up. Fairly acedemic as it's very high whatever.
yes it is, obviously bin laden hasn't been following your rules of warQuote:
Originally posted by aknisely
Like it or not, there are rules of war, and one of them is that you don't intentionally target civilians. No exceptions. His killing your civilians is not an excuse to kill his civilians.
No he hasn't, and for that he will (regardless of "should") die for that. That does not give you the right to kill innocent people.Quote:
yes it is, obviously bin laden hasn't been following your rules of war
well, it don't matter either way to me, as long as someone pays for this
Why make innocent civilians (Moslems or not) pay for it? They do not associate with Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban or any other Islamic extremist group.
We might as well hang all Christians for those who stone 6-year-old girls walking to school in Ireland.
okay, then don't kill the inocent people, kill all the guilty people, and as to your second statement why not?? i don't care much if i live or not, so you can go ahead and hang me... just don't hang any hott gurlsQuote:
Originally posted by aknisely
Why make innocent civilians (Moslems or not) pay for it? They do not associate with Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban or any other Islamic extremist group.
We might as well hang all Christians for those who stone 6-year-old girls walking to school in Ireland.
I second that!Quote:
Originally posted by Skitchen8
just don't hang any hott gurls
Good, now you don't want to kill all Moslems. Your next step is to stop hating all Moslems.Quote:
okay, then don't kill the inocent people, kill all the guilty people
hm... i dunno if i can go that far
Ok fine, you win i don't hate all muslims, just the ones that are evil
Say whatever you want to me; what matters is what you actually believe.
Obviously we should look for justice, not vengeance. When I was young, revenge and 10 cents would buy a good cup of coffee. Now, revenge and $1.00 buys a good cup of coffee, making it even less valuable.
While it is never right to deliberately kill civilians, it might not always be possible to avoid it. If the US fired rockets at a terrorist stronghold and killed some innocent bystanders, I would feel bad about it, but would not second guess them and say the attack was unwarranted. When you get involved in a war, some s**t happens.
In some countries, I do not consider the civilians so innocent. Palestinians are not the only ones gloating over what happened. In any country with that attitude, it would not bother me at all if a lot of civilians were wasted as a side effect of going after the terrorists.
As mentioned in a previous post, I do not think the standard here should be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard is applicable to ordinary citizens accused by the government.
BTW: The US, Britain,. France, et cetera do not have really clean hands. During WW2, we fire bombed some German cities, which resulted in massive civilian casualties. I think more were killed that way than via A-Bombs, but I am not sure. Since we were the victors, the issue was never addressed at Nuremberg.
what channel is bush on now?
The issue was addressed, it was a defense made primarily by Keitel and Goering; you did the same things we did and you aren't being held accountable, therefore we're off the hook. It obviously wasn't a mitigating defense (since both were sentenced to death).Quote:
Since we were the victors, the issue was never addressed at Nuremberg.
The TMGWCBIMT wasn't trying the allies; the German government was free to indict and try the governments of the other nations, I guess, but they didn't because there was no German government at that point.