Libya

[Shaggy Hiker]

Its 90% of the educated population of the civilized WORLD. Most people (this is where I got the 90% from, it is just an estimate. In actuallity the number may be higher) think purposefully killing unarmed people and children is bad and I agree.

That's a really interesting statement when you stop to think about it. I'm not even quite sure what I find so interesting about it. At first, I was struck by the fact that you listed children as separate from people. Quite a natural thing to do in any conversation on the topic, but what does it mean? I would suggest that it does not mean that children are not people, but rather that killing children is an especially horrific act such that it is listed distinctly from the act of killing people, though the only possible reason for doing that would be to make the act of killing people appear even worse.

That would make sense, too, because purposefully killing unarmed people is not opposed by 90% of the US. You have to strongly modify that statement before you could get opposition up to 90%. The unarmed people can't be prisoners convicted of particularly heinous crimes, as support for the death penalty is significantly above 90%. The unarmed people can't be killed as a matter of mistaken identity, as well over 10% of the US population accepts such an action as long as it happens to somebody else. And the unarmed people can't be people who might otherwise take up arms against us.

Even the bible doesn't condemn killing. The prohibition against murder in the ten commandments pertains to only a specific subset of the world (observant jews, in that case), while killing anyone who is not in that subset is actively encouraged.

So even when it comes to something like as apparently clear as killing unarmed civilians, the situation is only clear if you ignore all the examples that contradict it.

EDIT: I guess the point I am making is about communication. I tend to agree with the statement, because I think that in every culture there is a prohibition against murder in some context. However, despite agreeing with the general sentiment, the statement itself is patently and demonstrably false. It would have to be highly modified to make it true, yet it communicates something. I just can't say quite what.