[aldo_14]

I think the guy was just a lunatic looking for a cause (which is true of pretyt much all terrorists, I s'pose, beut ne'ermind).... I think the FBI released a statement that he had no known links to any terrorist organisstion.

If he surrendered, and was shot (intentionally to kill or maim).  It's wrong. You can;t do that, because it puts you on their level of thinking.

If he was still firing and a threat, then it was of course, justified.  But lethal force must always be the last resort.

[CP5670]

Lets be realistic, if you're talking about "war" which is what Bush and Blair keep saying "war on terrorism" then yes, you have to be ruthless and sometimes a bit less civilised than normal. However, there is a point at which you must stand behind your own principles or you become no better than the enemy. There are rules - even in war.

Well, the thing is that who is to decide whether you are "better" or "worse" than these guys? These terrorists are not "morally bad" or anything as the media makes them out to be, but they are merely against the western world, and are thus its enemies. This is not a conflict of moral values, but a conflict of competing interests; this is what most people are misled into thinking from the media conditioning. When you get down to the fundamentals there are no moral rules in a war, and no moral rules in anything else for that matter. (and if one side tries to obey them anyway, they will just become an unnecessary hinderance)

I like something like "Thou shalt do what thou likes; the end shalt turn out the same anyway."

[Wildlife]

It was my dads birtdhay on the 4th too,

well rather the shooter die then another innocent bystander, so shooting him on sight was really the only thing to do on a quick act now think later situation.

But when you consider, dropping all morals and compassion for human life to kill  these ppl, i think you just turn into them instead.

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by sandwich


"Thou shalt not kill"?? Where the heck is that from? There's a similar phrase in the Bible - one of the Ten Commandments, actually - that says "Thou shalt not murder."

Don't get 'em confused.

Are you sure? In every English translation I've seen, it's "kill", not "murder".

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Are you sure? In every English translation I've seen, it's "kill", not "murder".

Completely sure. Exodus 20:13 (NKJV): "You shall not murder."

In the Hebrew, it's "Lo tirtzach"

Lo = No, not, don't
tirtzach = the infinitive of the root word for murder, RETZACH

[Dan1]

"A dead snake never comes back to bite U"....   -Some Indian




Ya, eleminating them is the only thing they understand, we should be like Sherman, during the civil war.

Eleminating everything in our path but not kill people.

Unless they try to kill u first.  

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by sandwich


Completely sure. Exodus 20:13 (NKJV): "You shall not murder."

In the Hebrew, it's "Lo tirtzach"

Lo = No, not, don't
tirtzach = the infinitive of the root word for murder, RETZACH

Damn, you're right....

[Martinus]

Another lose-lose situation

[vyper]

Originally posted by CP5670


Well, the thing is that who is to decide whether you are "better" or "worse" than these guys? These terrorists are not "morally bad" or anything as the media makes them out to be, but they are merely against the western world, and are thus its enemies. This is not a conflict of moral values, but a conflict of competing interests; this is what most people are misled into thinking from the media conditioning.

Murder of innocent civilians *is* bad. Thats what terrorists do - terrorize civilians by any method including murder. Thats why I make no distinction between Eta, IRA, al-Quada (spelling?), you-name-it.
No matter how just your cause, its wrong to kill those who are not armed or not able to fight.

Also, morality is never a hindrence - it is what keeps man civilized and what makes the life of the just man more safe and peaceful than that of the un-just.

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by vyper
There are rules - even in war.

And when that first bullet flies over your head all your politics, rules, and other BS go right out the window.  Then you are more worried about survival.

[vyper]

Good point - yes in a combat scenario I dare say instincts come first. I was talking about the argument proposed up the board that the end justified the means.

And might I add - the morality my country (UK) and her allies are based on is not "BS".

[Warlock]

Originally posted by CODEDOG ND



And when that first bullet flies over your head all your politics, rules, and other BS go right out the window.  Then you are more worried about survival.

Fact

Even in training.  When we did field exercises, now mind you I was NOT infantry,...although I did perform as the "enemy" vs my battalion my last 3 years active and my first 2.5 years I was on my units QRF (quick reactionary force), it was as real as it can get without having holes punched into you

You had the MILES system on EVERY weapon which used a microphone to pick up the sound of a dischanged blank from the weapon and fire an IR laser from the barrel emttier. The harnesses worn by troops and vehicles would receive this beam.

Rocket weaponry even had discharge blanks that fired 3 foot flames as per a real rocket would from the launcher.

Reason I'm saying all this ? It's as real to combat as you can get. Once the first cap sounds, ALL you see are:

Buddies: Do not shoot.

Bad Guy : Shoot as much as possible.

Course I had a BLAST doing that and it's bout the only thing i truely miss. heh YOu should seen the look on an oppossing unit's COs face when he popped up in front of me prepping to fire a Viper Anti-tank launcher and I jerked the fire button....heheh *Click* *BOOM!* *Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep*   "Ummmm damn sir...sorry...but you're dead"  

Although the OCs didn't find that too amusing my BC sure as hell did

[CP5670]

Murder of innocent civilians *is* bad. Thats what terrorists do - terrorize civilians by any method including murder. Thats why I make no distinction between Eta, IRA, al-Quada (spelling?), you-name-it.
No matter how just your cause, its wrong to kill those who are not armed or not able to fight.

Most of us think all of that is "morally wrong", but there are definitely people in the world who think to the contrary. (i.e. the terrorist bands) Since there is no way to prove or disprove the correctness of this, it cannot be an absolute quantity. Same goes for most other moral issues. Everything is right and everything is wrong.

Wars are not fought over moral issues; they are fought over conflicting interests and nothing more.

Also, morality is never a hindrence - it is what keeps man civilized and what makes the life of the just man more safe and peaceful than that of the un-just.

Yes, but what happens when the "just" and the "unjust" come into conflict with each other? That is when it starts to become a hinderance.

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Warlock
His comment was about my comment saying Army Regs stated you aren't supoossed to use a hvy machine gun on enemery personal.

WHAT?  What in god's name are you supposed to use a .50 cal on?  Tanks?

[CP5670]

It would take some time to damage a tank with that...

[vyper]

CP5670, I'd love to get into Plato here (no, actually I wouldn't!!) but I'm far too tired....

[Shrike]

Originally posted by CP5670
It would take some time to damage a tank with that...

Yeah, no ****.

"What the **** man, what are we supposed to use, harsh language?"

[CP5670]

CP5670, I'd love to get into Plato here (no, actually I wouldn't!!) but I'm far too tired....

Then I would get Nietzche here... (actually, I don't like many of his ideas, but I think he has the moral part right)

If you are into this stuff, see if you can find that 1000-post religion thread that was around a while ago; I posted a lot in that.

"What the **** man, what are we supposed to use, harsh language?"

I think they actually do that in real combat; first hurl a curse at the guy and then shoot him.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Damn, you're right....

How much does that throw your life-view or whatever off-kilter?

Originally posted by Shrike
WHAT?  What in god's name are you supposed to use a .50 cal on?  Tanks?

Well, the .50 cal was designed originally as an anti-air gun back in the WWII days. Since it's pretty useless for that purpose nowadays, it's stuck in every corner of the armed forces that it fits (at least, it is in the IDF). I'd say it's great at tearing apart anything with equal or less armor than the M113 APC. It's fire rate ain't all that high compared to a standard "machine gun", making it useless at "spraying" infantry (unlike the Vulcan... ).

[LtNarol]

actually, they have a new policy now, its called "Diplomacy".  They have to say cute soothing things to the enemy while pulling the trigger...

A joke for the slower members of the forum.