Danish Leader thinks hurting civilians is ok.

[Theweirdtophat]

Historically a lot of terrorism has been "defeated" by a political solution. But it's very difficult to see a political solution with Islamic extremists.

They are not invincible and really I'm surprised those punks weren't defeated eons ago. But what made them what they are? People don't do all of this trouble for no apparent reason. There was something that made them.

 

[columbus]

I know some get caught in the crossfire although some will plow right through innocents just to get to them whi

I think the reason Putin is more likely to succeed is because he cares less about civilian casualties. He is less conflicted about moral details and more focused on results than the opinions of political opponents.
Tom

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm a little concerned that France has declared war on ISIS following the Paris attacks. Who knows where that will lead.

Why? All good people and nations should declare war on IS.

 

[BSM1]

You never hurt innocents no matter what. There is always another way around it. They just haven't figured it out yet. Just imagine the kind of guilt one has to live with by taking an innocent life to get to the criminals. Some will justify that, but that's the thing. There is no justification for taking an innocent life. You try to not take innocent life, not just shrug your shoulders and attack the whole area, knowing full well innocents will be hurt.

I understand but you really didn't answer my question. Who's more innocent in this scenario? Who gets to live? Who dies? Point is life is just a series of decisions. Some are easy, some are hard.

Does that make it right? The whole nuke thing in Japan was wrong to blow them up just to make Japan surrender. Why do people think choosing the lesser of two evils is ok? That means you're still pickling evil though.

Should we take into consideration that the Japanese attacked innocents first without mercy; and the Japanese population was willing to kill and die for the Emperor. Also, the nukes probably saved 1 million lives of soldiers and civilians.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I understand but you really didn't answer my question. Who's more innocent in this scenario? Who gets to live? Who dies? Point is life is just a series of decisions. Some are easy, some are hard.


Should we take into consideration that the Japanese attacked innocents first without mercy; and the Japanese population was willing to kill and die for the Emperor. Also, the nukes probably saved 1 million lives of soldiers and civilians.

I wouldn't want anyone to die though, not even the most awful people on the planet but they do need to be defeated. They are the enemy, not innocent women and children. Who gets to live? The innocent.

Probably? According to who? Just because they attacked innocents doesn't give you permission to act just as ruthless as them.

 

[Laika]

Well if you're being invaded how are you a murderer if you are defending yourself against invaders? Hurting civilians is not necessary and it is wrong. It's basically just kicking them when they are down which is not needed. This guy thinks it's the only way to defeat the terrorist group and it isn't. It's the easier lazy way of doing it but certainly not the only way.

You still have to kill the enemy. that's "murder" even if you can justify it.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

You still have to kill the enemy. that's "murder" even if you can justify it.

The way it's defined murder is the of taking an innocent life. They are not innocent. As I said, I don't want anyone dead, even the worst people on the planet. Defending yourself is natural, and murder isn't.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why? All good people and nations should declare war on IS.

But in the modern age being at war means total war, no holds barred.

 

[Laika]

The way it's defined murder is the of taking an innocent life. They are not innocent. As I said, I don't want anyone dead, even the worst people on the planet. Defending yourself is natural, and murder isn't.

I would consider it murder even if I were to take the life of someone who was guilty because I don't believe I have a legitimate "right" to take a persons life. I am not god. I may have the power, but I can't make it right.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But in the modern age being at war means total war, no holds barred.

How so? Wars are much less destructive than they were throughout history. Also, total war is when a nation is totally committed to waging a war and all aspects of life are geared towards supporting that war. We're certainly not living in a situation like that.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Wars are much less destructive than they were throughout history. Also, total war is when a nation is totally committed to waging a war and all aspects of life are geared towards supporting that war. We're certainly not living in a situation like that.

So the Second World War wasn't enormously destructive?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So the Second World War wasn't enormously destructive?

I'm talking about now, not almost a century ago. We're certainly not involved in anything like WWII.

 

[Augustus]

You have to remember that IS are occupying this country. Many of the civilians there are also victims.

The idea that the West don't bomb civilian areas is also bullsh!t. they will bomb them if they deem the cost/benefit is in their favour. If they knew Bagdhadi was in a civilian area they wouldn't think twice about bombing it. A high value target will be taken out whatever the civilian cost, this is clearly evident.

For the rank and file, they stay amongst civilians in small numbers. Is it acceptable to kill 100 civilians just to kill 5 or so footsoldiers? Kill a few million Syrians and Iraqis then there would be no more IS. It could be done in a few weeks.

Is that what the 'civilised' countries have come to though? Just because they don't want the negative headlines of soldiers dying if they send in the troops? Shameful. The politicians certainly aren't volunteering to be boots on the ground either. Just like in ancient times, politicians who are keen on war should be leading the troops in battle. Can guarantee there would be a whole lot fewer military adventures.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I would consider it murder even if I were to take the life of someone who was guilty because I don't believe I have a legitimate "right" to take a persons life. I am not god. I may have the power, but I can't make it right.

There's a difference though. In the heat of battle when you are left with no choice but to kill them that's different. However it would be wrong I think, to kill the criminals if they were disarmed or unable to defend themselves. However murder is when one intentionally kills an innocent. It is true it would still be wrong to kill a criminal when the criminal is no longer a threat. However if a pack of criminals invade by doorstep, there is nothing wrong with defending yourself. One should try not to kill them though but if left with no other alternative that's different.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I would consider it murder even if I were to take the life of someone who was guilty because I don't believe I have a legitimate "right" to take a persons life. I am not god. I may have the power, but I can't make it right.

It is wrong to kill a criminal that is no longer a threat. However in the heat of battle when left with no other alternative, self defense is natural. One should try not to kill them anyway but sometimes people will have no choice but to stop them. There is a difference between killing and murder though and self defense can involve killing someone but it wouldn't be murder because you are defending yourself which is natural.

If it were up to me, and if there was a way space travel can improve, I wouldn't want them dead or imprisoned. I would just banish them to another planet. Although an uninhabited one so they don't harm innocents.

 

[Jumi]

Just like in ancient times, politicians who are keen on war should be leading the troops in battle. Can guarantee there would be a whole lot fewer military adventures.

They would probably resort to pressing buttons inside a bunker, but I agree there should be something that would deter such war hawks.

 

[Laika]

There's a difference though. In the heat of battle when you are left with no choice but to kill them that's different. However it would be wrong I think, to kill the criminals if they were disarmed or unable to defend themselves. However murder is when one intentionally kills an innocent. It is true it would still be wrong to kill a criminal when the criminal is no longer a threat. However if a pack of criminals invade by doorstep, there is nothing wrong with defending yourself. One should try not to kill them though but if left with no other alternative that's different.

I think you just have to do what you have to do. Its when the thing has finished and maybe you start to reflect on it, that it will start to look as if the only motivation for it was survival. Maybe that is 'right' but it is very much based on naked self-interest and the use of force. that's why I find it so tricky.

If it were up to me, and if there was a way space travel can improve, I wouldn't want them dead or imprisoned. I would just banish them to another planet. Although an uninhabited one so they don't harm innocents.

For the British in the 18th century, it was Australia.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For the British in the 18th century, it was Australia.

And look what happened there!

 

[Godobeyer]

Syrian refugee bring food to his son , and his son comfort him