Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Paul Clapham
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
Sheriffs:
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Knute Snortum
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Ron McLeod
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Frits Walraven
  • Joe Ess
  • salvin francis

moussaoui attempts guilty plea

 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
A few thoughts:
Is there a moral difference between a country that targets enemy leaders and a country that targets anyone in general?


Clearly

If a suicide terrorist was given the opportunity to blow up one of two targets which would they choose? a) a soldier alone on a road b) a busload of civilians.


The legitimate target would be a), the target the terrorist would most likely choose would be b).

As a civilian, would you feel better knowing you could be attacked at any time for any reason or knowing that if you avoid certain places or people that you would not be attacked?


You would like to think that parties of a conflict would do their best to avoid civilians, so therefore you would like to think you are safest by avoiding certain areas.
Anecdote: The leader of group B was in conference with his close advisors, a reporter sympathetic to B was present. This was the day prior to a trip scheduled by a representative of Country A to a place that was sensitive because of its religious significance. The leader of group B was told by his advisors that there was going to be trouble, that the people were being instigated, and they expected much violence to result from the trip by the representative of A. The advisors told the leader of B that they should difuse the situation before it started and do their best to prevent their people from placing themselves in harm's way. The leader of group B, refering to his own people, stated simply: "They are all martyrs."
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
A few thoughts:
Is there a moral difference between a country that targets enemy leaders and a country that targets anyone in general?
If a suicide terrorist was given the opportunity to blow up one of two targets which would they choose? a) a soldier alone on a road b) a busload of civilians.
As a civilian, would you feel better knowing you could be attacked at any time for any reason or knowing that if you avoid certain places or people that you would not be attacked?


Thomas, first I want to address your point about wanting justice more than revenge. Great answer for an idealistic world that we do not live in. What if justice was not an option? What if no government body wanted to listen to you and your son's death was simply ignored, or better yet, blamed on someone else that you did not feel was responsible? What if you had no chance for a shot at justice against those who you thought were responsible? I think soon you would consider revenge as wrong as it may be.
My second point is that you are too caught up on words and not enough on actions. I will agree that the suicide group is a bit more honest but a lot less smart than the military who kills and says that it regrets the loss of innocent lives but considers the mission a success and continues. But besides being a little more smart and a little less honest, that sort of military is no different than that terrorist group.
Thomas, do not be so caught up on words. Look at actions. If the military group says it regrets the loss of innocent lives, but it happens over and over again, then the words should start meaning less to you.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a civilian, would you feel better knowing you could be attacked at any time for any reason or knowing that if you avoid certain places or people that you would not be attacked?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a civilian, I would not feel any better if the place I had to avoid was going outside to get food. As a civilian, I would not feel any better if the place I had to avoid was right outside of my front door.
What if you and your family were under constant harrasment and humiliation by a certain military, but you did not have a military of equal strength? What if you had no government body or international organization to run to, to tell them about your suffering? What would you do, Thomas, Jason?
The impression that I get from you, Thomas, is that you feel that the military has more right simply because it is called a "military" rather than a group and because it claims to target "terrorists". Step back for a moment. Step away from the words and consider the actions. If the military is killing civilians then it is just as wrong as if the terrorists are killing civilians.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
"Anecdote: The leader of group B was in conference with his close advisors, a reporter sympathetic to B was present. This was the day prior to a trip scheduled by a representative of Country A to a place that was sensitive because of its religious significance. The leader of group B was told by his advisors that there was going to be trouble, that the people were being instigated, and they expected much violence to result from the trip by the representative of A. The advisors told the leader of B that they should difuse the situation before it started and do their best to prevent their people from placing themselves in harm's way. The leader of group B, refering to his own people, stated simply: "They are all martyrs.""
This is very interesting. This is a prime example of what I am talking about. Here, I will take it that Jason agrees that these people are civilians. What is worse, the leader of group B saying the words, "They are all martyrs." or the leader of group A going to this place and killing/injuring the people from Group B?
It seems ridiculous to me to even care what the leader of Group B said. Yes, it is a stupid thing to say, and the leader of Group B is obviously a stupid person to say such a thing, but that does not make him responsible for the violence that Group A has carried out against the civilians.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I believe during the American Revolution, the American's were the "terrorist" and the British were the "military".
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:
"Anecdote: The leader of group B was in conference with his close advisors, a reporter sympathetic to B was present. This was the day prior to a trip scheduled by a representative of Country A to a place that was sensitive because of its religious significance. The leader of group B was told by his advisors that there was going to be trouble, that the people were being instigated, and they expected much violence to result from the trip by the representative of A. The advisors told the leader of B that they should difuse the situation before it started and do their best to prevent their people from placing themselves in harm's way. The leader of group B, refering to his own people, stated simply: "They are all martyrs.""
This is very interesting. This is a prime example of what I am talking about. Here, I will take it that Jason agrees that these people are civilians. What is worse, the leader of group B saying the words, "They are all martyrs." or the leader of group A going to this place and killing/injuring the people from Group B?
It seems ridiculous to me to even care what the leader of Group B said. Yes, it is a stupid thing to say, and the leader of Group B is obviously a stupid person to say such a thing, but that does not make him responsible for the violence that Group A has carried out against the civilians.


You seem to have missed the point, and also don't seem to recognize the historical event being referred to. At this particular incident, neither Country A or its soon-to-be leader who was visiting the site inflicted any violence on anyone. The simple act of the representative from A visiting this site was viewed as an afront, although they did not apparently appreciate the effect that the visit would have nor its consequences. This event is pointed at as being the pivotal event leading to the start of the "second uprising" (I made that name up ).
The leader of Group B did know what affect A's actions would have, did not take steps necessary to mitigate things, and instead offered his own people up as sacrificial lambs.
Should the representative of A gone there in the first place? I would say no. That means that both parties are responsible for the events that transpired. The rep from A should have realized the cultural sensitivity of his visit and not gone there, the leader of B should have acted responsibly and kept the interests of his own people foremost in his mind, as opposed to encouraging violence (at worst) or refusing to stop it when he had the opportunity.
It takes two to tango and you cannot point to either party and say it's solely their fault this happened. In this particular event, rep from A was ignorant at best, leader of B was irresponsible at best. So if you want to look at one reason for the event that transpired, you could say it was because of the actions of rep from A and the leader from B. In other words, both parties share responsibility.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:
I believe during the American Revolution, the American's were the "terrorist" and the British were the "military".


Again you are quite mistaken. An organized, uniformed colonial militia, with distinctive markings and a responsible chain of command, carried out attacks on British military targets, using generally accepted military tactics.
Come on, I would think you might know the history of your nearest neighbor a little better than that.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Should the representative of A gone there in the first place? I would say no. That means that both parties are responsible for the events that transpired. The rep from A should have realized the cultural sensitivity of his visit and not gone there, the leader of B should have acted responsibly and kept the interests of his own people foremost in his mind, as opposed to encouraging violence (at worst) or refusing to stop it when he had the opportunity.
It takes two to tango and you cannot point to either party and say it's solely their fault this happened. In this particular event, rep from A was ignorant at best, leader of B was irresponsible at best. So if you want to look at one reason for the event that transpired, you could say it was because of the actions of rep from A and the leader from B. In other words, both parties share responsibility.


I could not agree more with what is quoted above. But then were is the difference in opinion? It is here: You do not think that I am blaming both sides (correct me if I am wrong), and I do not think that you are blaming both sides, and here is why.
When Group B bombs a bus and kills civilians, I blame Group B ONLY. When Group A bombs a residential building knowing there are innocent children in that building, I blame Group A ONLY.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you see it this way: When Group B bombs a bus and kills civilians, you blam Group B ONLY, BUT when Group A bombs a residential building knowing there are innocent children in that buidling you blame both Group A and Group B (or at least elements in Group B). If you are going to blame elements in Group B for the murder of innocent children in a residential area, then you should blame elements in Group A for the bus attack. I do not agree with that philosphy (my philosphy is stated above this one), but at least it is fair.
Like I said, let me know if I am completely off with my perspective of how you my view things.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
"Again you are quite mistaken. An organized, uniformed colonial militia, with distinctive markings and a responsible chain of command, carried out attacks on British military targets, using generally accepted military tactics."
Sorry, but you are quite mistaken. At the time the military tactics used by the Americans was not generally accepted.
"Come on, I would think you might know the history of your nearest neighbor a little better than that."
I am not sure what you mean by that, but I would think you might know the history of where you live a little better than that.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:
"Again you are quite mistaken. An organized, uniformed colonial militia, with distinctive markings and a responsible chain of command, carried out attacks on British military targets, using generally accepted military tactics."
Sorry, but you are quite mistaken. At the time the military tactics used by the Americans was not generally accepted.
"Come on, I would think you might know the history of your nearest neighbor a little better than that."
I am not sure what you mean by that, but I would think you might know the history of where you live a little better than that.


Well, waiting behind trees along the sides of roads was not common, but not exactly inovative either (guerilla tactics having even been used to some extent in the English Civil War between the Tories and the Roundheads, although on a more limited basis). These guerilla tactics against military columns were only one tactic used, and I might add used very well by the colonials. Just as commonly you had battles such as Bunker Hill (which was really Breed's Hill btw), Camden, Concord, Cowpens, Monmouth, Saritoga, Ft Ticonderoga, Yorktown, etc... which involved fighting of the sort that was considered more civilized by the British. This is aside from the various naval battles fought.
[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:

I could not agree more with what is quoted above. But then were is the difference in opinion? It is here: You do not think that I am blaming both sides (correct me if I am wrong), and I do not think that you are blaming both sides, and here is why.
When Group B bombs a bus and kills civilians, I blame Group B ONLY. When Group A bombs a residential building knowing there are innocent children in that building, I blame Group A ONLY.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you see it this way: When Group B bombs a bus and kills civilians, you blam Group B ONLY, BUT when Group A bombs a residential building knowing there are innocent children in that buidling you blame both Group A and Group B (or at least elements in Group B). If you are going to blame elements in Group B for the murder of innocent children in a residential area, then you should blame elements in Group A for the bus attack. I do not agree with that philosphy (my philosphy is stated above this one), but at least it is fair.
Like I said, let me know if I am completely off with my perspective of how you my view things.


Group B purposely targets civillians making them purely responsible for those actions. Country A shares responsibility with Group B for actions in which civilians are unintentionally killed as a result of their proximity to hostiles from B, when those hostiles from B deliberately try to hide among civilians. B is responsible for placing civilians in harm's way, A must be held responsible for carrying out combat operations despite the fact that civilians are in close proximity to hostiles. If A deliberately conducted operations specifically and intentionally targeting civilians, there is no one to hold responsible for those actions but A.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Group B purposely targets civillians making them purely responsible for those actions. Country A shares responsibility with Group B for actions in which civilians are unintentionally killed as a result of their proximity to hostiles from B, when those hostiles from B deliberately try to hide among civilians. B is responsible for placing civilians in harm's way, A must be held responsible for carrying out combat operations despite the fact that civilians are in close proximity to hostiles. If A deliberately conducted operations specifically and intentionally targeting civilians, there is no one to hold responsible for those actions but A.


With the argument about generally accepted warfare and otherwise, arguing will never reach any conclusion. The fact is that the British did label the Americans as "terrorist". But that is besides the point.
So I take it I was correct with my assumption about the way you percieve the situation. So, Jason, allow me to ask you this. If group B would say that it regretted civilian loss, but bombed a bus to kill a few soldiers that were on that bus, would you say that it was the soldier's fault for being on a bus with civilians?
Furthermore, you are saying that it is Group B's fault, because these elements in Group B are "hiding behind civilians". I disagree with that comment. If a member of Group B has a wife and children, is he suppose to say, "Well, they want to kill me, I should stand in a wide open field." It is ridiculous.
It is completely unfair to say that just because Group A claims to be after "terrorist" or whatever label they call it, that they are not 100% to blame for bombing a residential area killing innocent people. They share the blame with no one.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Jason, I just wanted to reiterate my question and make sure you answer this question.
If Group B declared publicly that it will no longer target civilians, rather it will target soldiers, to defend itself against the crimes and humiliation of Group A. And say members of Group B got on a bus and saw no soldiers, so they did not blow up the bus, but then they went on another bus, and there was 1 soldier, with his wife and 14-year old daughter, along with 9 children and a few other innocent civilians, and they blow up the bus. Would you say that soldier is to blame for "hiding behind civilians"? I really don't think you would (correct me if I am wrong).
So how in this same situation if you replace "Group A" with "Group B" and vice-versa, and you replace bus with house, suddenly your whole opinion changes.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:
I believe during the American Revolution, the American's were the "terrorist" and the British were the "military".


Actually nothing could be further from the truth. The American rebels had an army that attacked the British army. It did not attack civilians either in the US or in London. This was in spite of great provocation by the British which included stirring up Indians to attack and murder settlers in order to force the Americans to send troops away from the main combat areas.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:
Sorry, but you are quite mistaken. At the time the military tactics used by the Americans was not generally accepted.

As a student of the American Revolution you will have to show something to support that opinion. The Americans fought in fairly standard European type battles. In the south there was one American commander who fought what we would call a guerilla war, but he never targeted civilians.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:
Jason, I just wanted to reiterate my question and make sure you answer this question.

I think Jason's point is that there are plenty of situations where soldiers are not around civilians and make targets that would not endanger civilians while the terrorists never allow for a situation where they can be attacked without civilian casualties.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:
So how in this same situation if you replace "Group A" with "Group B" and vice-versa, and you replace bus with house, suddenly your whole opinion changes.


This is very simple The people we are refering to as Group B purposely place themselves amongst civilians specifically so that they will not be targeted by the military of A, or if they are civilian casualties will occur. This is not fantasy or some made up hypothetical situation, it is fact.
Let me re-iterate the following very relevant quotes from a previous post:


In broad terms, there are three principles which govern military targeting: military necessity, humanity, and proportionality.
Military necessity - the principle which justifies measures of regulated force not forbidden by international law which are indispensable for securing the prompt submission of the enemy, with the least possible expenditures of economic and human resources.
Humanity - forbids the infliction of injury or destruction not necessary to the achievement of legitimate military purposes.
Proportionality - demands that parties refrain from attacks, even against legitimate military targets, likely to cause civilian suffering and damage disproportionate to the expected military gain.




The requirement to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects, imposes obligations on all the parties to the conflict to establish and maintain the distinctions . . . . Inherent in the principle of protecting the civilian population, and required to make that protection fully effective, is a requirement that civilians not be used to render areas immune from military operations. Civilians may not be used to shield a defensive position, to hide military objectives, or to screen an attack. . . . A party to a conflict which chooses to use its civilian population for military purposes violates its obligations to protect its own civilian population. It cannot complain when inevitable, although regrettable, civilian casualties result.



The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states that, �utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations�, is a war crime.



Exploiting the discrimination requirement placed on attackers by deliberately commingling civilians with military targets violates the basic principles of the law of armed conflict. Note, however, that a defender�s violation of these principles�for example, its deliberate placement of civilians in the vicinity of military targets or its use of specially protected sites to house weapons�does not relieve the attacker of all legal obligations. Among other things, an attacker would generally still be obligated to comply with proportionality principles and refrain from attacks likely to result in civilian damage excessive in relation to military gain. Nevertheless, the relative protections normally granted those civilian persons and objects is weakened.


I think those quotes, based on international law, speak for themselves. So if you understand the above, the only question should be whether bombing a high-value military target where there is a reasonable expectation of a certain number of civilian casualties is meets the principle of proportionality. In this particular case, I personally would say it does not, although I am also open minded enough to see that a convincing argument could be made the other way.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
As a student of the American Revolution you will have to show something to support that opinion. The Americans fought in fairly standard European type battles. In the south there was one American commander who fought what we would call a guerilla war, but he never targeted civilians.


I will also be willing to allow that certain actions undertaken by colonials (but not by the miiltia) could be construed as terrorist. Specifically I am thinking of the burning of the Gaspee, the first hostile act the colonials committed against the Crown.
I would be willing to accept that this incident of the Revolution could be viewed as a terrorist act. Of course the target was legitimate, no civilians were harmed or targetted, and the crew was safely removed, but regardless the Rhode Islanders would not be seen as lawful combatants today.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I think one could make the argument that it was not a terrorist act. Civilians were not targeted. In fact, no one was killed. A military target was destroyed. One might as well argue that the Boston Tea Party was the act of terrorists.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think one could make the argument that it was not a terrorist act. Civilians were not targeted. In fact, no one was killed. A military target was destroyed. One might as well argue that the Boston Tea Party was the act of terrorists.


I would agree with you except for one thing. At the time we did not have an organized resistance. In that light, it couldn't have been a military operation because we had nothing resembling a military, nor an armed and organized resistance, with which to carry out such an attack. I personally would call them patriots, or freedom fighters, but one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist I guess. At least these patriots conducted themselves responsibly, whatever you want to call them.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Just out of curiosity Thomas, since you stated you were a student of the Revolution, were you aware of the burning of the Gaspee as the first hostile act, or had you always heard it was the Boston Tea Party? We Rhode Islanders got screwed as it seems the history books were written in Boston, and most of them refer to the Tea Party as the first overtly hostile act. Damn Bostonians.
We do proudly burn a replica of the Gaspee off what is now known as Gaspee Point in Narragansett Bay around June 9th every year though.
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7292
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
American revolutionaries as terrorists. Proposed, no less, by someone calling themselves "Truth."
Jason, I don't know why you bother.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
American revolutionaries as terrorists. Proposed, no less, by someone calling themselves "Truth."
Jason, I don't know why you bother.


 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:
What if you and your family were under constant harrasment and humiliation by a certain military, but you did not have a military of equal strength? What if you had no government body or international organization to run to, to tell them about your suffering? What would you do, Thomas, Jason?

Let me ask this... suppose an Iranian murdered your wife. He then flees to Iran and the Iranian government refuses to extradite him. Would you then be so upset that you would kill any Iranian that you saw on the street? Suppose that the government of France occupied your country. Would you feel morally justified in killing people on the streets of Paris?
Terrorists in Egypt have been targeting tourists in order to put pressure on the government of that country because they feel they are being oppressed. Can this be justified? Is there any moral reasoning for killing people that have nothing to do with the government of Egypt, not even remotely?
As far as what I would do... there are in fact many international organizations to complain to. There is the UN and Amnesty International for starters. However, when one resorts to violence, one loses the moral high ground and no one is likely to listen to you or care what happens to you. No one cries when murderers die.
Imagine you are a citizen of Poland in 1941. Would you believe that it would be moral to kill a bus load of German children because German soldiers are killing your children?
The point is that murder is always wrong. It can never be justified. My moral religious beliefs would never allow me to murder someone.
On a side note: I am reminded of the assassination of SS Obergruppenf�hrer Reinhard Heydrich. Czech agents, trained in England, assassinated Heydrich. The operation was designed in such a way that only Heydrich and his SS driver were killed. This would not be a terrorist attack because the agents did their best to kill their target without endangering civilians. Compare and contrast this event with other attacks on enemy leaders.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
I personally would call them patriots, or freedom fighters, but one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist I guess.

There is a critical difference that prevents a freedom fighter from ever being a real terrorist (although their enemies may refer to them as such). The difference is that freedom fighters don't target civilians. The interesting part of the Gaspee incident is that not even members of the military were targeted. Only military hardware was destroyed.
And yes I was aware of the Gaspee incident. I believe that there was another British ship burned off Rhode island around the same time. I'll have to double check some of my references.
[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Hmmmmmmm, all these posts, so long, so full of ideas, if only I could posts like that.......
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The difference is that freedom fighters don't target civilians.


Very good distinction.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 183
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You may also wish to know that EV is translated from Latin.


I am well aware of this mainstream theory.
If you like I can also directly translate it to you some passages as I have studied Latin more than five years before becoming a Computer Engineer.
Please note that also the fact was originally written in Latin is not universally accepted.
Some parts may have been originally written in Greek or Hebrew.
 
omar khan
Ranch Hand
Posts: 183
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

On a side note: I am reminded of the assassination of SS Obergruppenf�hrer Reinhard Heydrich.


From Oxford Dictionary.
to assassinate: to murder an important or famous person, especially for political reasons:
The prime minister was assassinated by extremists.
My position is this: it did violate the commandments since it is killing/murder but it might have been a necessary act to prevent further sufferings. God knows better.
Question: in your opinon did this act violate the commandments?
(P.S. I have an obsession for ethical/religious dilemmas)
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:

I am well aware of this mainstream theory.
If you like I can also directly translate it to you some passages as I have studied Latin more than five years before becoming a Computer Engineer.

Theory? Why would we need a theory as to whether EV was written in Latin? I mean it was written only a few years ago by someone who is alive! Why can't we just ask him what language he wrote it in? As to whether any of it was written in Greek, I really don't know. But I do think John Paul II's knowledge of Greek is a bit weak compared to his Latin.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by OMAR KHAN:
My position is this: it did violate the commandments since it is killing/murder but it might have been a necessary act to prevent further sufferings. God knows better.
Question: in your opinon did this act violate the commandments?

No. My reasoning is that this was an act of war against an armed man in uniform who was undoubtedly a combatant. A state of war existed between England and Germany at the time and the assassins were agents of England.
 
omar khan
Ranch Hand
Posts: 183
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Theory?


Sorry for the misunderstading.
I though you were referring to the Gospel.
Now I see your point.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I think Jason's point is that there are plenty of situations where soldiers are not around civilians and make targets that would not endanger civilians while the terrorists never allow for a situation where they can be attacked without civilian casualties.


Please allow Jason to speak for himself, Thomas.
About the American Revolution, I will not allow you to change the entire point of this discussion. You can make your claims and believe what you want. I will not argue with you about this point.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
"This is very simple The people we are refering to as Group B purposely place themselves amongst civilians specifically so that they will not be targeted by the military of A, or if they are civilian casualties will occur. This is not fantasy or some made up hypothetical situation, it is fact."
Jason, you have asked me a series of questions before and I have directly answered them, but anytime I ask you a question, you ingore it or try to get around it.
First of all, this is a hypothetical situation we are talking about. Unless you are talking about a specific situation which is not what this argument is about.
Here is another question that you will probably avoid. If a member from Group B is with his family, in his apartment sleeping, would you say he is "hiding behind civilians" or at home with his wife and children? If you say that he is "hiding behind civilians" then I would argue Group A soldier on a bus is "hiding behind civilians".
Your views Jason are so incredibly bias.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <To Jason>:
Here is another question that you will probably avoid. If a member from Group B is with his family, in his apartment sleeping, would you say he is "hiding behind civilians" or at home with his wife and children? If you say that he is "hiding behind civilians" then I would argue Group A soldier on a bus is "hiding behind civilians".


Well, these leaders of group B we have been referring to are outlaws and criminals who know they are specifically marked for death. Given that, sleeping with his family in his apartment is knowingly placing them at risk. If it is his intention to surround himself with civilians in the hope that this lessens the risk to his person, and really even if it is not his intention since he knows his status as a hunted person, then the answer is "yes, he is hiding behind civilians". He is knowingly placing them at risk, and he is using their presence to reduce the risk to his person.
The individual soldier on the other hand is not specifically targetted by anyone. He is in a public place, and has no reasonable expectation of attack. He is not hiding from anybody, he is not a criminal, nor is he on the run. Given this, he is not hiding behind civilians when he chooses to use public transportation.

Your views Jason are so incredibly bias.


Which is the biased portion? Wanting to hold all parties of a conflict accountable, or basing my position on international laws and conventions? Maybe it's simply having the moral clarity to be able to see a moral difference between deaths caused unintentionally or through negligence and outright cold blooded murder of innocents?
On another note, this conversation is finished until you start using a registered name.
[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Truth>:
About the American Revolution, I will not allow you to change the entire point of this discussion. You can make your claims and believe what you want. I will not argue with you about this point.

So you get to determine the range of this discussion? You make absurd claims and then when challenged you take your ball and run home to mommy. I agree with Jason, until you register with your real name I will no longer be responding to you.
BTW, in case you haven't noticed, the "entire point" of this discussion has changed several times since Randall's first post.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <To Thomas>:
What is absurd is your claim that the Native Americans were "terrorists" after everything "Americans" did to them.

Excuse me... where exactly did I say anything about Native Americans (other than that the British paid them to attack settlers to draw off US troops)? I mean where did I say it, other than in your imagination?
And perhaps you would care to list the terrorist acts of Americans against the Indians that occurred prior to the American Revolution? Or are you just blowing smoke because you don't actually have anything worthwhile to say?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <To Jason>:

Don't answer this is if you don't want to. I really do not care. But I will say...

Why should Jason answer your questions when you refuse to answer any of ours? I will ask you again... does the IRA have the right to kill British citizens in London because they feel their country is being occupied by an oppressive foreign government? Do the Kurds have the right to blow up school buses in Baghdad because they are being attacked by what they consider a foreign ruler? If so, then who gets to decide who is a foreign ruler or an oppressive government? If any group with enough weapons gets to decide, then aren't we talking about anarchy?
On a side note: if the Arab nations had made peace with Israel in 1948, would the west bank be an independent Palestinian state or still part of Jordan?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <To Thomas>:
Haha.. if I have to list terrorist acts of Americans against the Indians for you, then you are really so far behind that I really don't see the point. You see Thomas, what if someone told you the Holocaust didn't happen? If someone told me that, I would find quite pointless to argue with someone like that. This is that sort of thing.

OK, apparently a list would be too difficult for you. Try this... name one terrorist act by Americans against Indians prior to the American Revolution.
But I will state once again, that I have not once mentioned American Indians other than to say that they were paid by the British to attack American settlers west of the 13 colonies in order to force George Washington to send troops to the west away from the main battle aactions along the coast. This was not a statement against the Indians but rather against the British (who taught the Indians to scalp their victims so they would know how much to pay the Indians). Where you got the idea that I said that Americans either did or did not act in terroristic ways against the Indians is beyond me. I have never commented either way. This is apparently your method of avoiding looking like a twit. "I don't have an argument so I will accuse him of something he didn't say." Please, find the post I made that supports your accusation against me. Either that or be a man and apologize. Personally, I expect neither to happen.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Too bad that certain anonymous posters chose to destroy this conversation. It had been moving along nicely for a little while. I think we will have to revert back to deleting certain topics. Some people have demonstrated that they can not discuss certain topics.
 
Put the moon back where you found it! We need it for tides and poetry and stuff. Like this tiny ad:
Java file APIs (DOC, XLS, PDF, and many more)
https://products.aspose.com/total/java
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!