[the saint]

Hannie, on Apr 17 2006, 09:59 PM, said:

I also don't think that it is possible to exterminate terrorism by killing a whole lot of people.

Yes it is. Wipe the entire human race off the planet and eh, voila - no more terrorists.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2006, 09:02 AM, said:

sceptic, on Apr 14 2006, 08:05 AM, said:

biological weapons do the same job, they are cheaper and easier to make and youi can reclaim the land quicker

like anthrax? i don't know how soon the land (ie, water etc) can be reclaimed but i understand your point... btw, in your opinion would anthrax be more, less, or equally moral with a neutron bomb?

Quote

Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over

yes, probably it would

As was often debated in High School...."Why don't we just kill all the violent people?" I rest my case.

[paulg]

the saint, on Apr 15 2006, 08:28 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Apr 14 2006, 02:21 PM, said:

Free, on Apr 14 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over 

Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma?

Paul

Yes, its a s***hole with a crap football team.

Crap is relative.

The Coca-Cola Football League Championship : Table 18 April 2006

1 Reading P 44 102pts
2 Sheff Utd 43 85
3 Watford 44 77
4 Preston 44 76
5 Leeds 43 74

[large snip ...] 

12 Southampton 44 55

[helene_t]

I don't see why it's morally superior to kill people. Then again, what do I know about moral issues.

As for the "war on terror" (sigh) I think the problem is to locate/identify the terrorrist. After that has been done it's a pretty trivial decision whether to nuke them or just shoot them. Might be more practical to shoot them unless there happens to be some 100,000 terrorist and no by-standers in a well-defined area.

[pigpenz]

we are probably doomed to repeat history till we finally get it right

[the saint]

cardsharp, on Apr 18 2006, 02:33 PM, said:

the saint, on Apr 15 2006, 08:28 AM, said:

cardsharp, on Apr 14 2006, 02:21 PM, said:

Free, on Apr 14 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over 

Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma?

Paul

Yes, its a s***hole with a crap football team.

Crap is relative.

The Coca-Cola Football League Championship : Table 18 April 2006

1 Reading P 44 102pts
2 Sheff Utd 43 85
3 Watford 44 77
4 Preston 44 76
5 Leeds 43 74

[large snip ...] 

12 Southampton 44 55

Check the form guide.

Burley has us sorted. Next year, the Saints come marching back in!!

[the saint]

And Leeds is still a s***hole!!

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Apr 18 2006, 09:49 AM, said:

I don't see why it's morally superior to kill people.

i don't think cohen et al are saying that... they're saying that *if* there will be wars, the neutron bomb is more moral than the present way of waging war

[Codo]

Hi Luke,

this is just crazy. Or do you prefer to be killed by a neutron bomb to a knife, an arrow or a "normal" bomb?
This kind of discussion is insane.

And the idea of bombing any country, which supports terrorists is crazy too. So, lets believe, that a country did so. Now, you go there and kill about 20 billion people to stop terrorist to kill 10.000? Just to think about it is a reason to be send to the hospital.
Or do you want to stop Insana bin Laden by bombing just one or two cities in Afghanistan? Ridiculous.

[helene_t]

Agree 200% with Roland.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Apr 19 2006, 04:17 AM, said:

Agree 200% with Roland.

i just threw out the question, i didn't condone any particular strategy for war... ignoring the fact that 20 billion is a lot of people, the whole neutron bomb thing revolves around the (supposed) fact that there are far fewer people maimed, far fewer destroyed cities, infrastructure, etc in an attack of this nature than in one of a more conventional nature... i personally don't know if this is true or not, but most experts seem to say so

also, it doesn't work the way you're thinking... 1 bomb usually is designed for a one square mile area, not a city or country... that would be the *other* nuclear weapon

[Codo]

Hi Luke,

so, you (no not you, put "these" guys want to use just one, or two or how many neutron bombs?

Do they believe, that, if they bomb Teheran/Bagdad/Kabul or which ever place you name, they will stop terrorism?
Why? Do they think Al-Quaida will see, how fruitless there efforts are and give peace a chance?
Do they think, that the rest of the world will see the whole power of this nuclear weapon and rest in peace?

How should this stop any terrorist? It will stop the few, they killed between the thousands ore millions of victims, who had been just guilty for living in the wrong area. But of course, you create thousands new terrorists, who lost relatives or friends in your attack.

No Sir, these ideas (not yours) are horrible.

Maybe, if you bomb Washington DC, you can stop terrorists. Because, then they will see, that their efforts to create chaos are nothing compared to the damage you can do yourself. And as you will hit the terrorists enemies, there will be no reason for revenge.

But otoh, there will be no majority voting for this spectacularly plan, so we better forget about bombing for freedom. It had never worked against terrorist and it cannot work.

But the questions behind this are very deep and philosophical:

Are you allowed to kill enemies?
Are you allowed to kill innocent people while fighting enemies?
If you are allowed, which rate is acceptable?
Is it better to kill 500 victims in another country, if you can safe the life of one of your soldiers?
Are you allowed to kill people, who may or may not try to kill you in the future?

I am pretty lucky, that I don´t need to answer these questions, even if I have an answer for myself to some of them.
But I wonder, why you give these nuclear bomb thoughts so much room. As far as I remember, you have a very christian way of thinking ( But I did not check this, just from fading memory). So you must know, that you (and me) are not allowed to kill and even more, we have to love our enemies. So, your answers should be clear. Better get killed then kill.

[mike777]

"am pretty lucky, that I don´t need to answer these questions,"
"Better get killed then kill."..This is a very tough philosophy to standby and do nothing while your babies are killed but at least you are honest and say you would. Those people on Flight 93 choose another option which I guess you disagree with.


We all have to answer these questions, one way or the other. Even if we do nothing we have answered the question in some way.

I would add if someone does nothing that does not make them innocent or not guilty, there is guilt and responsibilty by omission . If you have evil leaders and do nothing that does not make you "not guilty" . That is why I never quite understood the phrase "innocent civilian" or Innocent standby"

[Codo]

Hi Mike,

sorry, I was very unclear with that point:
As a christian, I should not kill and I should love my enemies.
Unluckily, this goal - at least the second- is hard to reach, too hard for me most of the time.
And of course, I always would (hopefully) fight whenever me or others are attacked.
And I doubt, that this is wrong in most culturs believe.
So the people from flight 93 had been right and had been heroes in my view.
I wish, that I will never be in such a situation, but if, I wish to be like them.
And I think, that nearly any given church will see it the same way, but of course, I cannot proove this.

Thank you for answering, so I can clarify.

But I do not like your view about innocent citizens.
1. It is very hard to be in a resistence, if a lot of people like your government.
2. Just to be too weak to fight against an evil leader is no reason to be punished by death.
3. If all your TVs and newspapers shows what a hero and good leader your leader is and you just and simple believe in your news, aren`t you still innocent?

4. According to your view, you must think that al-quaida is doing well. After all, they just fight the citizens of the USA and other countries, which have an "evil" leader.. So, they share your view: If you do not fight against your evil Governement, you are guilty yourself.
Of course, your definition of an "evil" government is very different from their definition. But of course your side and their side both claimed to be right.

And just to get this clear, I would always prefer your leaders to their by a million to one, I just tried to use your view through their eyes, because I believe, that your statement is very dangerous and not "right".
(Right in my very personal hemisphere....)

[luke warm]

Codo, on Apr 19 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

Do they believe, that, if they bomb Teheran/Bagdad/Kabul or which ever place you name, they will stop terrorism?

no... what they believe is that by using the neutron bomb selectively, pretty soon the countries that grant safe harbor to the terrorists would stop doing so... the terrorists, as we know them, would then either have to give up terrorism or live in a place where what they are is not known, which would probably be impossible for them

Quote

Do they think Al-Quaida will see, how fruitless there efforts are and give peace a chance?

no, not voluntarily... but when countries that once supported them can no longer safely do so, they might have no choice

Quote

Do they believe, that, if they bomb Teheran/Bagdad/Kabul or which ever place you name, they will stop terrorism?

the way i understand it, stopping terrorism is a byproduct of destroying the sources of their support and succor

Quote

Why? Do they think, that the rest of the world will see the whole power of this nuclear weapon and rest in peace?

maybe... the aim wouldn't be to kill all terrorists, it would be to make it hugely unpalatable for the countries that harbor the terrorists to continue doing so.. *then* the hunt for individual terrorist cells can begin

Quote

As far as I remember, you have a very christian way of thinking ( But I did not check this, just from fading memory). So you must know, that you (and me) are not allowed to kill and  even more, we have to love our enemies. So, your answers should be clear. Better get killed then kill.

you are correct... for me personally, that's the way i feel... but i'm not speaking of my personal beliefs at the moment (i don't think it's wise to try to form a theogratic gov't), i'm speaking from the viewpoint of the "world"

[mike777]

Codo, on Apr 19 2006, 11:00 AM, said:

Thank you for answering, so I can clarify.

But I do not like your view about innocent citizens.
1. It is very hard to be in a resistence, if a lot of people like your government.
2. Just to be too weak to fight against an evil leader is no reason to be punished by death.
3. If all your TVs and newspapers shows what a hero and good leader your leader is and you just and simple believe in your news, aren`t you still innocent? IF you do not stop evil leader in your own country are you not guilty..anyway....

4. According to your view, you must think that al-quaida is doing well. After all, they just fight the citizens of the USA and other countries, which have an "evil" leader.. So, they share your view: If you do not fight against your evil Governement, you are guilty yourself.
Of course, your definition of an "evil" government is very different from their definition. But of course your side and their side both claimed to be right.

And just to get this clear, I would always prefer your leaders to their by a million to one, I just tried to use your view through their eyes, because I believe, that your statement is very dangerous and not "right".
(Right in my very personal hemisphere....)

When I say evil leader I mean a leader of same country. In others words in WW11
there was the ethical issue of bombing cities.

I never quite understood why it was ok to kill enemy soliders that bomb but not the civilians back at home who make the bombs and bullets, planes and tanks.

To put this in context, If the USA is truly in a Global War is it not ok to attack in USA those that build the bullets and pay for the war from an enemy perspective..again What innocents?

[Codo]

luke warm, on Apr 20 2006, 05:41 AM, said:

Quote

Codo, on Apr 19 2006, 09:05 AM, said:

Do they believe, that, if they bomb Teheran/Bagdad/Kabul or which ever place you name, they will stop terrorism?

no... what they believe is that by using the neutron bomb selectively, pretty soon the countries that grant safe harbor to the terrorists would stop doing so... the terrorists, as we know them, would then either have to give up terrorism or live in a place where what they are is not known, which would probably be impossible for them

Okay, so they will start with Leeds and London because of the english terrorists, and with Hamburg, because of the terrorists of 9/11?

Or better with Saudi Arabia, because Osama is a Saudi?

Maybe you better try Okalhoma and Texas, because of the terorrist who lived there (disclaimer: I don`t think about your president, just Waco f.e)

Sorry, this idea is plain silly.

Quote

no, not voluntarily... but when countries that once supported them can no longer safely do so, they might have no choice

Hmm, as far as I know, the US supported Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as long as they had been useful. So, will you start with Washington?

And as told above, the terrorists use to live anywhere. Unluckily, they don`t just hide in the mountains of Afghanistan. Where do you begin, where do you stop?

Quote

Quote

Why? Do they think, that the rest of the world will see the whole power of this nuclear weapon and rest in peace?

maybe... the aim wouldn't be to kill all terrorists, it would be to make it hugely unpalatable for the countries that harbor the terrorists to continue doing so.. *then* the hunt for individual terrorist cells can begin

This is bulls*** You say: At first we kill an awfull lot of people so that the survivors will cheer to our plans and support us in our fight against terrorists?
Which is a harbor for terrorists? The guys who flew the airplanes at 9/11 learned flying in Florida. Do you think, that Florida is a safe harbour? After all, Florida is proofed to be (had been) safe for terrorists.

But luckily, you don´t speak for the "viewpoint of the world". I guess, that most of the world will shiver, if they get to know your ideas. I guess, that some US-Americans may like your point of view, but hopefully not the majority,

[Codo]

mike777, on Apr 20 2006, 07:59 AM, said:

When I say evil leader I mean a leader of same country. In others words in WW11 there was the ethical issue of bombing cities.

I never quite understood why it was ok to kill enemy soliders that bomb but not the civilians back at home who make the bombs and bullets, planes and tanks.

To put this in context, If the USA is truly in a Global War is it not ok to attack in USA those that build the bullets and pay for the war from an enemy perspective..again What innocents?

It really is an issue, whether it is okay to bomb cities in wars. More gifted people then me had their thoughts about this and wrote something cold "The Genfer Konventionen" (Sorry, don`t know the translation). There, they not just noted, what is right if you have prisoners of war, butt too, what is right during a war.
This is quite difficult, because you have to decide which killing is tolerable and which not. But they found rules and it was very clear, that you must wear an uniform to be allowed to fight in war and you are not allowed to kill civilians.
Bombing civil people was not okay. So, even during WW 2, the allies first tried to bomb just the big companies, the railway stations and other "military goals". But later, they decided to use some terror against the civil population too. This worked as far as it make the war shorter. But was it right? I don`t know, but I doubt it.
The same story happened with the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was this correct?

In the latest wars, the stronger party always tried (at least the news say so..) to hit the military targets. So maybe, even your government does not share your point of view, that there are no (or small) differences between soldiers and civilians.

But just answer yourself one question: Do you see a difference, between a man with a gun comming into your country and trying to occupy or destroy it and his wife and kids?

And if you believe, that you are in a global war, you are plain wrong. Terrorism has NOTHING to do with war. A war is declared by states against other states. Terrorism is made from individuals or groups. So, you can never win a war against terrorism. To find terrorists is police work, not army work.

If you want to stop the guys, who made and paid the bullets, you better start in your own country. You taught the guys how to fly and an awful lot of money had been spend for al-quaida as long as they fought the russians in Afghanistan.
So in your definition, you are not innocent.

[Chamaco]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2006, 12:58 PM, said:

the inventor of the bomb said it's the most moral weapon ever invented... it doesn't maim, it doesn't destroy infrastructure, etc...  it just does what all weapons of war do, it kills people - but it does so with the least collateral damage possible

is such a weapon an actual possibility in the war on terror? if not, why not

I am sorry but I fail to see how any bomb can be a "moral weapon"...

To me it sounds at least as paradoxical as a "happy car crash", a "perfumed piece of *****", or a "funeral party" ...

This, regardless of the reasons that are claimed to justify dropping a bomb.

[the saint]

Can we please, please, please just get on with it and bomb Leeds, PLEASE?