Close USA borders to Arab world?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv


Third, the Irish in England have engaged in nothing like the type of activity that the Arab/Islamic terrorists do.

---

I'm a very surprised that you are not better informed about this. Presumably this is something suppressed in the US press and education system. The casualties from the current troubles in Ireland are approximately 3500 - including many civilians - in the UK - a similar level to that the US has suffered from Arab terrorism (WTC Attack 2,792)

However the UK population is about one fifth of the US level.

Note also that they have had their autonomous homeland (which is what they deserved) for over 80 years now - the Palestinians haven't had theirs yet (I know - our fault under Balfour - and the wishy wash UNs fault too;)).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
The Swiss deny entry to almost anybody who is not either affluent or possessing needed technical skills.

---

Are we talking about closing borders or denying citizenship? You need to get this clear. I've often driven, walked, rode by train into Switzerland many times without even having my passport checked. There are no paranoid Swiss border measures.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Guv
What ethics are being eroded? Do we not have the right to exclude any whom we consider detrimental to our society from entering out country?

---

Again I'm surprised that you can't see that if you screen, monitor or even restrict movements of people on the basis of intelligence information that consitutes a positive contribution to security.

Conversely if you block on purely racial grounds then it alienates any possible friends and builds up a justifiable hatred where none may previously have existed.

Yeah - let's ban all the Arabs because of Sept 11th. Also, while we are at it, can we ban all the Christians, after all, wasn't it a fundamentalist Christian who was responsible for the Oklahoma City Bombing.....

Personally, I agree with Kzin on pretty much all of his recent comments.

I live in America and can tell you that the media is tainted. In fact I try and get all of my news from BBC which I find to be the most objective of news sources out there.

NO immigrants should be allowed in the country. All current immigrants should be deported. Therefore, only Americans will be a threat to blowing up America and I doubt that'll happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WiKiDJeFF
Personally, I agree with Kzin on pretty much all of his recent comments.

I live in America and can tell you that the media is tainted. In fact I try and get all of my news from BBC which I find to be the most objective of news sources out there.

---

You mean the same BBC that was banned from going aboard any Royal Navy ships due to slanted and inaccurate reporting? The same BBC that had its own reporters complaining of slanting stories during the latest Gulf War?

I would find another source. The reason why you might feel the BBC is the most objective is they print exactly what you feel so you feel comfortable with it. My advice to you would be to check multiple sources to get your information and rely less on the obviously slanted and politically motivated BBC.

X

Of course I verify everything I read on BBC with the NY Times, C-Span, and sometimes MSNBC. If you have some other sources that you like I'd be happy to hear them. I'm always looking for new news outlets. I just like the BBCs format thats why I go to them first.

The only news agency that I don't use is Fox News for obvious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
You mean the same BBC that was banned from going aboard any Royal Navy ships due to slanted and inaccurate reporting? The same BBC that had its own reporters complaining of slanting stories during the latest Gulf War?

---

A wide based balanced, non-partisan viewpoint designed to hook even your enemies into listening to you is not the sort of thing that is necessarily good for troop moral in a combat situation.

The requirements of the BBC and the Navy in a combat situation are different - barking out clear simple orders that need no reflection or consideration doesn't make good journalism and will convert no neutrals.

So yes - I understand the 'embedded' reporters were getting a hard time in the ward room. If I were a Naval Officer going into action I'd want ban them too :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith


I would find another source. The reason why you might feel the BBC is the most objective is they print exactly what you feel so you feel comfortable with it.

---

Comfortable? Not me. The reason why the BBC has such a widespread acceptance worldwide (about twice the worldwide viewer levels of CNN - which is number two in viewers worldwide) is that they aim to present a range of views and allow a voice to many different factions - which they then - admittedly use to shape their own conclusions (who wouldn't ;)). Of the mass media they therefore

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
My advice to you would be to check multiple sources to get your information
X

---

I would agree with that entirely!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by B-Rabbit
NO immigrants should be allowed in the country. All current immigrants should be deported. Therefore, only Americans will be a threat to blowing up America and I doubt that'll happen.

---

This will leave lots of room for the native americans who will find it a lot more spacious without all these beezers who have crowded them out since 1492 :cool:

Quote:

---

Therefore, only Americans will be a threat to blowing up America and I doubt that'll happen.

---

I'd have to disagree with both parts of this statement. :p

Well, I mean, if you're not a citizen of the country you should be deported.

Isn't it funny how the USA ignores the Ireland/UK troubles for decades but as soon as the US gets a bloody nose they take an interest in Terrorists?

As for closing borders to Arabs, that is known as racial discrimination. And in the end, if a terrorist wants to get into your country they will always find a way, no matter what security is put in place.

Just think, since the massively increased security on international flights (mostly due to paranoia), not one international terrorist has been caught going through. Interesting ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Isn't it funny how the USA ignores the Ireland/UK troubles for decades but as soon as the US gets a bloody nose they take an interest in Terrorists?

---

Isn't it funny how, when you read about how somebody got mugged, you just take another bite of your bagel, but when you yourself get mugged, you buy a shotgun and sit on your porch, just waiting for some rotten, stinking, slimey, theiven criminal to try to sneak up on you to rob you blind?

Quote:

---

As for closing borders to Arabs, that is known as racial discrimination. And in the end, if a terrorist wants to get into your country they will always find a way, no matter what security is put in place.

---

Yep. You're right. Lets get rid of all security. Absolutely no need for it whatsoever. It fails 1 percent of the time. Totally unacceptable!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Isn't it funny how, when you read about how somebody got mugged, you just take another bite of your bagel, but when you yourself get mugged, you buy a shotgun and sit on your porch, just waiting for some rotten, stinking, slimey, theiven criminal to try to sneak up on you to rob you blind?

---

True, true. I just can't understand how people can hate someone that they have never met so much :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NotLKH

Yep. You're right. Lets get rid of all security. Absolutely no need for it whatsoever. It fails 1 percent of the time. Totally unacceptable!

---

Chill dude! :ehh:
I didn't say anything about STOPPING security. Just implied that security at the moment is getting out of hand.
For example, I am going to Florida this year for a wedding. I am having to apply for a visa just to go on holiday!?! What's that all about!?!
Apparently though Bush had about 50 separate warnings about the 9/11 attacks but they never took any notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

True, true. I just can't understand how people can hate someone that they have never met so much :confused:

---

Neither could 3000 + people that got killed for going to work a few years back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

Neither could 3000 + people that got killed for going to work a few years back.

---

I agree, it just doesn't make sense!?!
In the end we are all made of the same stuff so why all the differences? :confused: :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Apparently though Bush had about 50 separate warnings about the 9/11 attacks but they never took any notice.

---

Too bad the supposed warnings weren't so specific as to mention the actual day/time/method/location/perp.

:wave:

True, but you'd have thought they would have upped security on internal flights :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

I agree, it just doesn't make sense!?!
In the end we are all made of the same stuff so why all the differences? :confused: :ehh:

---

Indeed we are. But we are not all educated the same way.

...and that's the sad thing.
Most religion's teach that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This breeds misunderstanding and hatred for others, and that is pathetic.

It's all about respect, and not enough people respect others. :(

That's not quite true.

The majority of religious teaching (being Christian, and Muslim) teach monotheism which is partly what you've said.

However, the major religious groups teach understanding, and tolerance: I'm sure someone more familiar with the Quran (sp?) or the bible will be able to help out here.

Fundamentalism is a hijacked word. Another example of the media twisting knowledge and installing fear into the population at large.

Violende associated with a particular set of beliefs is down to the individual albeit some individuals are manipulated to a very large degree. Such an individual should not be denoted 'fundamental' simply because the actions the individual perpertrate are nowhere close to being inline with the faith the individual claims to believe in.

I object to religious groups. Organisations that hold huge power over large numbers of people. It seems to me that this is structure designed to extract money from the weakest and poorest. Even if it's not about money: it's about power induced through fear over another human being. Which I cannot accept as moral behaviour.

I can only presume that the religious bodies, and NOT the religion per se which are at the centre of all this trouble.

[rant over]

Yip, the CoE is very worried at the moment because they are not getting people through the door. Which proves that it's not about the faith, but the money.

I just don't like how religious persons always try and "convert" me or preach to me how they are more holy than I am. It really irritates me because you just get the impression, whether it's right or not, that they believe themselves superior.

The only religious group I respect are the buddhists. A lot of good ideologies there :thumb:

It depends, I guess, on how you are being 'preached' to.

As far as I am aware Jesus, Mohammed and a whole host of others never overtly forced religion down anyone's throat.

If you didn't want to know; they didn't bother.

So those who try to ram it down your throat do not understand the faith in which they profess to be converting you to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

...and that's the sad thing.
Most religion's teach that they are right and everyone else is wrong. This breeds misunderstanding and hatred for others, and that is pathetic.

It's all about respect, and not enough people respect others. :(

---

Interesting ;) As many others have pointed out, I guess no religion preaches intolerance to other creatures/religions or civilizations. It's the political reasons which divide the masses. For e.g. when Bush says he wants to spread freedom to all countries in the world, some people believe he wants to spread freedom, while some people believe he wants to spread the American version of freedom, and that's how differences start ;)

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Interesting ;) As many others have pointed out, I guess no religion preaches intolerance to other creatures/religions or civilizations. It's the political reasons which divide the masses. For e.g. when Bush says he wants to spread freedom to all countries in the world, some people believe he wants to spread freedom, while some people believe he wants to spread the American version of freedom, and that's how differences start ;)

.

---

I don't think that it's even sophisticated enough to be political; this would, of course, mean some form of preamble to civilised behaviour - which I've never observed.

As a footnote America was the one of the last of the world's democracies to treat people of all races equal, and men and women equal. They might now recognise it in statute, but on the ground it's a different matter. It's, to my own nation's shame, the same here in the UK - and the Magna Carta was centuries before America's constitution.

Where the West purports to bring freedom it is always preceded by violence and fear. I don't know whether the cost (of lives) is worth the democracy that we will eventually bring to these people. Especially when our own democracies are very very far from being perfect.

America, unfortunately, always gets counted because it's the biggest. I want to note that I include all the Western democracies, here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I don't think that it's even sophisticated enough to be political; this would, of course, mean some form of preamble to civilised behaviour - which I've never observed.

As a footnote America was the one of the last of the world's democracies to treat people of all races equal, and men and women equal. They might now recognise it in statute, but on the ground it's a different matter. It's, to my own nation's shame, the same here in the UK - and the Magna Carta was centuries before America's constitution.

Where the West purports to bring freedom it is always preceded by violence and fear. I don't know whether the cost (of lives) is worth the democracy that we will eventually bring to these people. Especially when our own democracies are very very far from being perfect.

America, unfortunately, always gets counted because it's the biggest. I want to note that I include all the Western democracies, here.

---

The message from Bush, as far as the spreading of freedom is concerned, is pretty clear: It's the American version of freedom, rather the Bush version. Nobody wants to pay attention to Afghanistan, because now Taleban has been removed from power, bin Laden is not doing anything other than issuing threats and the action has switched to Iraq. In Iraq, there is pretty much nothing Bush can do to make any progress, so they are lining up the potential targets, i.e. Cyria, Iran and North Korea. Whether democracy will succeed in Afghanistan, or whether it even exists there, post the American invasion, nobody is bothered to see. The same thing will happen in Iraq now that there is no stability. Though the US government and the Iraqi government (is it a government anyway? I personally don't think it's legitimate) will claim to have brought back stability to "parts of the region", it's going to be unrest throughout the next few years, during which America will have established complete control over the resources in Iraq. It can then cause further unrest in the middle east, toppling existing governments and throwing them in chaos using its military might.

Power corrupts, that much is true and evident.

.

Why is the Iraq government not legitimate?
If the American military had instilled their own government, then fair point. But the Iraqi people voted for the government that is in power, is this not what democracy is all about? :ehh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

The message from Bush, as far as the spreading of freedom is concerned, is pretty clear: It's the American version of freedom, rather the Bush version. Nobody wants to pay attention to Afghanistan, because now Taleban has been removed from power, bin Laden is not doing anything other than issuing threats and the action has switched to Iraq. In Iraq, there is pretty much nothing Bush can do to make any progress, so they are lining up the potential targets, i.e. Cyria, Iran and North Korea. Whether democracy will succeed in Afghanistan, or whether it even exists there, post the American invasion, nobody is bothered to see. The same thing will happen in Iraq now that there is no stability. Though the US government and the Iraqi government (is it a government anyway? I personally don't think it's legitimate) will claim to have brought back stability to "parts of the region", it's going to be unrest throughout the next few years, during which America will have established complete control over the resources in Iraq. It can then cause further unrest in the middle east, toppling existing governments and throwing them in chaos using its military might.

Power corrupts, that much is true and evident.

.

---

I think that what you say is the most part valid; but it's your omissions that bore the greatest hole here. You omit the responsibilities of the other 6.2 billion people in the world, more specifically the 300million+ citizens of Europe. After all we live in democracies that did not prevent America, and even worse, in the main part supported their actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

I think that what you say is the most part valid; but it's your omissions that bore the greatest hole here. You omit the responsibilities of the other 6.2 billion people in the world, more specifically the 300million+ citizens of Europe. After all we live in democracies that did not prevent America, and even worse, in the main part supported their actions.

---

If you accept that what the American government is doing is wrong, then there's no point in saying the others are doing nothing to stop it. Even if the others are not doing anything, whatever the US government is doing is still wrong and still unjustified.

When you talk of responsibilities, you must also take into account the dominance of the various nations on the international scale. It's evident from the Iraq fiasco that the US and the UK governments don't give a hoot to the UNO which could be viewed as a democratic platform. Since they don't care about this democratic platform, there is no reason to believe their cry of freedom is motivated by noble intentions. Also their nuisance value would exceed any other singular nation. The only way to prevent the US from spreading its own version of freedom is to amass equal or more might, in all fields. Since this conflict is multi-faceted, you will find that those nations who are politically opposed to the Iraq invasion are economically with the US because they can't afford to lose their share of the loot. Those nations who are not going to profit from the Iraq invasion don't have the military and political might to stand up against the US invasion.

You can see from the failures of the Cancun and similar summits that the third world countries are forming a front against the developed nations, at least economically. If that succeeds, they can together throw off the dependency on the developed nations and have the courage to openly and actively oppose their aggressions and other moves which hurt the developing nations.

In the end, it's all merely a power struggle, to create, increase and maintain dominance on the world's resources. The US government cares as much about the well-being of a common Iraqi person as I care about Bush's well-being.

In fact, I don't see how Bush could be different in essence from any other dictator, for e.g. Hitler. As the US president he can manipulate almost anything, at least within the US. He can paint his own picture of events in the media, he can force his own versions of decisions and policies down people's throats, so effectively he doesn't have any opposition. As for slaughtering millions of people, he is doing a pretty good job in Afghanistan and Iraq. With four more years, we can expect him to surpass Hitler in Cyria, Iran and North Korea.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Why is the Iraq government not legitimate?
If the American military had instilled their own government, then fair point. But the Iraqi people voted for the government that is in power, is this not what democracy is all about? :ehh:

---

Pooh. This is just like saying we don't like the presidency system in the US and want to replace it with a parliamentary system. So we invade the US, scrap the senate, put Bush and the senators behind bars and prosecute them, and then hold elections for the parliament.

First off, the US government has no business deciding how other countries should be run, just like you wouldn't want to listen to me if I told you to stop beating your wife. And if you are going to give me any bulls hit about the UN not doing anything, it's similar to this: I think that my neighbour doesn't treat his son good. (Note: I think so;)). I approach the police, they investigate him and find nothing wrong or worth taking action. Since I am unhappy with their conclusion, I take the law in my own hands, invade my neighbour's house and whack him.

The point being, the US government has no right to decide what form of government should rule where. Any and all disputes regarding a foreign government's functioning MUST be resolved in the UN and not unilaterally. It probably is because this arrangement is not always convenient to the US that it has undermined the UN all the while.

And no, don't tell me about the failed UN resolutions either. If the court fined my neighbour and the police didn't collect the fine, I have no right to mug him and then claim I was just doing their job for them. Because if the UN resolutions are not followed, you again MUST go to the UN to enforce them.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

Why is the Iraq government not legitimate?
If the American military had instilled their own government, then fair point. But the Iraqi people voted for the government that is in power, is this not what democracy is all about? :ehh:

---

That's pretty much what Bush did. Invaded Iraq with the US forces and toppled the Saddam government and then put his own government to power.

How about removing Bush from the US presidency and putting Clinton back there? I suppose you wouldn't object to it, as long as the invading forces were powerful enough to quash all your defences and stick guns your your heads? OK not literally stick their guns to your heads but maybe parade the streets day and night, bomb houses and in general simply create an atmosphere of terror and suppression.

.

Honeybee,

That's all nice and liberal . . .and some people may even be convinced by this postulating. But not me.

If you feel free to criticise then you should feel free to shoulder some of the responsibility due to you through inaction.

If you didn't pull a child out of the way from on oncoming car that you saw and the child didn't, then in my opinion you would be guilty by reason of inaction.

Sitting on your hands on the fence pointing fingers is an appalling state to be in. Yes, one that I have been guilty of in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

The point being, the US government has no right to decide what form of government should rule where. Any and all disputes regarding a foreign government's functioning MUST be resolved in the UN and not unilaterally. It probably is because this arrangement is not always convenient to the US that it has undermined the UN all the while.

---

You are right. The US has no right to decide what form of government should rule and where. I dissagree that this should be argued in the UN. The UN is a complete failure. Resolutions are passed based on the size of a countrys pocket book. If Pakistan had .0000001% of the GDP of the US or any other European country, India would have so many goddam sanctions and resolutions against them that they would never make it out of the 3rd world class. The UN is just another unneeded level of NON-Elected politicians trying to steal more of the worlds cash. It should be disbanded. I know the president of my country and the rest of the leaders of the world know how to use a telephone. If something needs resolved that is important enough to require the worlds attention. Pick up the freaking phone and put it on conference call mode.

Quote:

---

And no, don't tell me about the failed UN resolutions either. If the court fined my neighbour and the police didn't collect the fine, I have no right to mug him and then claim I was just doing their job for them. Because if the UN resolutions are not followed, you again MUST go to the UN to enforce them.
.

---

Again, How does an un-elected world body somehow become the world's police force. They have no right to do anything. I don't know about your country but In mine we elect our sherifs/judges and they enforce the law for us. No country should be held accountable by the UN, Including Pre-war Iraq and the US. All the UN has done is hurt relationships between countries that once got along fine by muddying up the waters with another layer of political bullsheit.

And to the topic(old) of course the US borders should not be closed to any one entering the country legally. Contrary to popular belief. The US is not facing a job loss problem. We just have too may jerry springer candidates not willing to work for a living. Reminds me of cousin Eddy on nat'l lampoons. "He's holding out for a management position". Send us some people who are worth a damn. :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Honeybee,
If you feel free to criticise then you should feel free to shoulder some of the responsibility due to you through inaction.

---

I agree, 'It is not enough to say I will not be evil. Evil must be fought wherever it is found.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

Honeybee,

That's all nice and liberal . . .and some people may even be convinced by this postulating. But not me.

If you feel free to criticise then you should feel free to shoulder some of the responsibility due to you through inaction.

If you didn't pull a child out of the way from on oncoming car that you saw and the child didn't, then in my opinion you would be guilty by reason of inaction.

Sitting on your hands on the fence pointing fingers is an appalling state to be in. Yes, one that I have been guilty of in the past.

---

I agree with you too yrwyddfa. If something that is fundamentally wrong is happening I would intervene. Something I have done on more than one occasion.
One such occasion was on a night out, and me and two friends passed a pretty large bloke beating his girlfriend. My one mate simply said "It's none of our business" and carried walking on. I could not, so I went over there to stop it. Needless to say my friend and I beat this guy senseless and called the police. Once the police arrived the bloke wanted to press assault charges on us, but after explaining what happened, and confirming with witnesses (including the girlfriend) the police charged him with assault. He's currently in jail. And I would do it again.
No matter what the reason a man must never hit a woman and if I ever see it I will stop it because it is wrong

As for Iraq, something had to be done. Saddam had slaughtered millions of his own people on a whim, and this it wrong. And as you hold so dear to the UN, does it not go against human rights to have your life taken from you because your so called "leader" is having a bad day. At least now Iraq is controlled by Iraqis :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

As for Iraq, something had to be done. Saddam had slaughtered millions of his own people on a whim, and this it wrong.

---

Valleysboy, I agree that Saddam was a bad guy, but why the US didnt do something about it back in the '80s? Oh wait, he was our friend back then. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xcoder

Valleysboy, I agree that Saddam was a bad guy, but why the US didnt do something about it back in the '80s? Oh wait, he was our friend back then. :)

---

A lot can change in 20 years. Enemy becomes friend, friend becomes enemy.
It is nothing to do with then, it is what's happening now. Look at Germany as a prime example. Back then the Berlin wall split the company so effectively. Now it is as though it never actually existed, which is nice to see. :thumb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

If you didn't pull a child out of the way from on oncoming car that you saw and the child didn't, then in my opinion you would be guilty by reason of inaction.

---

Eh, wrong analogy. A murderer is on the loose looking for a target. I happen to know the target. I wouldn't want to risk my life saving the target. I would approach the police with the information and expect them to arrest the murderer. Now the murderer happens to be one of the cops who's out on a private agenda, so the police cannot do anything or he gives them a skip or whatever, and kills the target. Obviously I would not dare stop the murderer because I know he will kill me too, without thinking twice.

Though I could see the speeding car and the child couldn't, I would try to save the child only if I could save him, not if I were going to be rammed with the child by the speeding car, I would be specially cautious about my own life when I knew the driver of the car intends to continue full speed and run over anything and anyone in his way. Or how about he takes the child to a remote alley and rams him down, where nobody can come help him?

Even if it were an accident, it's no inherent fault of mine that the child is ignorant (or his parents are), and the driver is rash. It's stupid to expect a bystander to risk his life and save the child, as if it's his duty or liability. Excuse me, don't blame me for your stupidity. It's you who is responsible for your actions and not those who sit on the fences.

Isn't that precisely why England and France actually tried to legitimize Hitler's early advances in Europe? Becuase it wasn't worth the effort for them to risk a war for what Hitler was doing. That doesn't justify Hitler's actions. That's a pathetic argument, typically American where you can kill yourself by smoking and sue the cigarette manufacturers for it.

How about you speed down a road and are stopped at the next intersection by a traffic cop for a speed violation and you present your case as: "well, nobody stopped me while speeding on this patch of road!"?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

I agree with you too yrwyddfa. If something that is fundamentally wrong is happening I would intervene. Something I have done on more than one occasion.
One such occasion was on a night out, and me and two friends passed a pretty large bloke beating his girlfriend. My one mate simply said "It's none of our business" and carried walking on. I could not, so I went over there to stop it. Needless to say my friend and I beat this guy senseless and called the police. Once the police arrived the bloke wanted to press assault charges on us, but after explaining what happened, and confirming with witnesses (including the girlfriend) the police charged him with assault. He's currently in jail. And I would do it again.

---

Good example, but then again if you had seen a squad car parked a few feet/metres down the road, you would have probably gone to the car and asked the cops inside to handle the situation, rather than doing it yourself. And what if the large bloke is replaced with a few armed mobsters trying to kill someone, who aren't concerned who else gets killed? I doubt you would intervene. And it would be stupid too.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

Eh, wrong analogy. A murderer is on the loose looking for a target. I happen to know the target. I wouldn't want to risk my life saving the target. I would approach the police with the information and expect them to arrest the murderer. Now the murderer happens to be one of the cops who's out on a private agenda, so the police cannot do anything or he gives them a skip or whatever, and kills the target. Obviously I would not dare stop the murderer because I know he will kill me too, without thinking twice.

Though I could see the speeding car and the child couldn't, I would try to save the child only if I could save him, not if I were going to be rammed with the child by the speeding car. It's no inherent fault of mine that the child is ignorant (or his parents are), and the driver is rash. Excuse me, don't blame me for your sins. You are responsible for your actions and not those who sit on the fences.

---

You would happily watch a car mow down a child even though you might have saved that child's life! :eek2:
Could you live with yourself, watching that child being killed and knowing that you may not have been able to save him, but you didn't even bother to try?
That is unbelievable. I would of course try to push the child out of the way, it would be instinctive, added to which my chance of survival would be much better than a small child.