It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A moral dilemma

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2002 @ 08:05 AM
link   


Originally posted by Mad Scientist
The taking of innocent life is deplorable, but sometimes their is no choice. I admit the US has had some blunders in Afghanistan, but when at war nothing runs like clockwork.


Does anyone have the right to kill innocents in their quest for good?

After all, America is hardly a moral cornerstone of society is it?

Well, what do u think? Agree or disagree?




posted on Sep, 20 2002 @ 08:11 AM
link   
well, in the words of good old spock "when the good of the many out weigh the good of the one or the few" then yes, there can be acceptable losses.
However a nation cannot take a selective stance on this as the U.S. has.
As such whilst ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban may in the long term prove to be of more benefit to the people than the 20,000 or so civilians who will loose their lives due to the attack (and don't get me wrong, I personally feel its caused more instability in the middle east which will eventually leave them in a worse situation) This does not excuse the U.S.'s selective application of "the spock principal" and, when it is used not as a blanket politic but as a tool for political Manoeuvre then no, nothing can justify the massive civilian casualties.

[Edited on 20-9-2002 by Lupe]



posted on Sep, 20 2002 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Lupe, hows this for a solution to your concerns over stability in the middle east - get rid of them all. We can divide the countries between each "civilised" nation, reducing the ridficulous monopoly that exists now. Or just use it for dune buggying



posted on Sep, 20 2002 @ 08:41 AM
link   
LOL.
ok. heres a gas chamber, would you mind herding those women and kids into it for me while I start the incinerators?



posted on Sep, 20 2002 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Were a bit more civilised than that these days, well just use one large chemical weapon drop, no one will even realised what has happened. We can censore all media coverage of the area. Done, no more "tension". A famous aussie quote - "Sometimes the simple things in life are often the best"



posted on Sep, 20 2002 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Hey no problem.
so long as your prepared to be the one to do it, go ahead.

.............................of course the massive coalition of other countrys who see what your doing may be an itsy bitsy bit peaved at the ethnic genocide and decide to get a little atomic over your slightly zealous ass..........



posted on Sep, 20 2002 @ 08:52 AM
link   
What about the Prime Directive?



posted on Sep, 20 2002 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Just joking Lupe. Although I think the US produces the largest amount of propaghanda of any government period, the fact I cannot disagree forces me to back the war on terrorism. If the civilians of the countries targeted are to be angry at anyone, it should be their own government, who supports those involved in terrorism. If you looked at all the past conflicts where a evil dictator/ruler - military faction has been defeated - overturned etc, there were innocent civilian casualties, Sometimes this is uncontrollable, it must be done. If civilians really tried to "stay out of the war", their chances wouldnt be too bad with the US technology in use. They would be in more danger fomr their own troops/terrorist movement (see palestinioan boy shot behind barrel etc)



posted on Sep, 21 2002 @ 01:19 AM
link   
no, no one has the right to take a life no matter the cause or cost. there are ways around war/murder. but, we told that it must be accepted, that this is the only way ... that's bullcrap. there's always a compromise and it's abandoned for murder, we should never accept that murder is the only way from our leaders.

statements like those of mad scientist and Lupe's quote are just sad to me. we are supposedly the most intelligent life on this planet and we are ready, willing, and able to destroy each other over something as simple as dirt-which is is abundance. then afterwards history calls it a massacre or genocide but while it's happening it's necessary. my friends, it's never necessary.

i don't accept these arguments as truth. they are lies and anyone who buys into them is brainwashed. i don't have to kill another human being to live--and no one has to kill another human being for me to live. life was not created that way, we'd all be vampires or cannibals if this were true. G-d didn't create murder, man did and we could stop it at anytime with just a change in doctrine and thought violence is unacceptable. we already say this in our societies, but it's conditional which makes us hypocrites.

after 9-11, many were saying they are ready to kill for our country and i was thinking, how could anyone be ready to kill--there is so much to live for i can't imagine taking that away from someone. life is our most precious possession. i'm not willing to die for dirt and i'm most definately not willing to kill for that same dirt. here all are trained to murder at the first sign of a threat and that's sick.

all murder is wrong and if we don't face that now we will continue the cycle of histroy calling us-humans vicious murderers, when this stage of humanity could be much more than that. or maybe not, maybe i'm before my time.
i'm stepping down off of my soapbox now.

[Edited on 21-9-2002 by Saphronia]



posted on Sep, 21 2002 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I don't know, FD, how's your English, is is better than your German?
Remember WWII?
Hitler, being the rascally tyke that he was, kept sending those nasty little rockets and bombs London way, knocking the Hell out of civilian areas. Churchill said to stop it, but Hitler kept on. So in response, the RAF flew over to Heillbronn, Germany (forgive the mispelling, I haven't been there or seen the spelling in 17 years) and bombed it into nothing. The only thing left standing was part of a steeple.
Churchill did what had to be done after Chamberlain, not having the guts for war, allowed Hitler the momentum to take over the continent of Europe.
Saph, please crawl out of the dreamworld and try reality. It isn't as pleasant here, but if you're going to talk to sober people you should be the same.
In order to compromise, the two sides have to be rational and have the good of their people in mind. Or do you ignore history. Once again, for simplicity's sake, I refer back to Hitler. Compromise got alot of people killed. Action would have saved lives. This needs to be understood. After the fact, how can you count the lives that have been saved; you can't. That is why it is necessary to understand that being weak kills. So understanding that, when leaders display a cowardly weak resolve, they are killing. Being a weak coward is murderous.



posted on Sep, 21 2002 @ 10:55 AM
link   
"those who live in the past are destined to repeat it." Senator George Mitchel.



posted on Sep, 21 2002 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Is that some backdoor way of saying that those who forget, or do not learn from history is doomed to repeat it?



posted on Sep, 21 2002 @ 01:33 PM
link   
no, that's saying if you dwell on the past then you will most assuredly wreck the future.



posted on Sep, 21 2002 @ 03:04 PM
link   
That is most assuredly makes no sense, as the point is to learn from the past, not repeat it with it's flaws.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join