Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Mr Tranny
I have heard your reasoning, and I have examined your arguments. While understanding the point from which you approach this, I cannot agree with your
conclusion about the justification of these acts. Justice cannot be achieved by brutal acts, committed against functionally defenseless people, no
matter what reasoning lies behind it, or how difficult it might be to attack the real centre of the problem that one is trying to address with such
actions.
The only way to prosecute a campaign of battle justly, is to only destroy legitimate targets, targets who have committed unjust acts, helped create
the state of oppression that is deemed to exist, and defend the sickened status quo. There is no, and will never be, a situation prevailing which
makes the slaughter of unarmed individuals appropriate, justifiable, or acceptable. You say that such an act was necessary to shake the system out of
its rigor, out of its safety zone. You may be right, but if that is the length, to which one must go to cause such an effect, then the effect is not
worth the sacrifice. No effect is worth the sacrifice of even a single innocent. Not if one wishes a just result.
The only justifiable action that Mr Dorner could have partaken of, with any legitimacy what so ever, would have been a campaign against the person of
those people he deems corrupt, not against thier families, thier friends, thier TV repair man, or postman. In killing an innocent, Mr Dorner makes
himself an enemy not just of those who may have wronged him, but of the people as a whole.
Congratulations. You have just indicted the moral standing of every imperialist
action of a government with collateral damage being deemed acceptable by it--
while villifying that behavior on an individual level. We can't have it both ways,
and I also personally decry both. Moral safety in numbers doesn't get it, because
it doesn't exist even if a whole country subscribes to it-- when it's evil.
Did anybody notice yet how devisive the subject matter is that's reported here
(AGAIN); and seemingly before any solid evidence surfaces? Broken record,
same studio, different players, SAME results. It reinvents the word to ospinion.
This thread is getting long and fat with rationalizations for inhuman behavior
after inhuman treatment. I'm backing out of the good v. evil frame of reference
because individual values are coming into view as rhetoric. We're all entitled
to look, but when something perceived as evil becomes policy where does it end?
And who's authorized to end it? Finally is ANY battle plan morally sound?
Big Bob was so perversely right..."Be careful when you fight the monsters,"
