3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead@Whitehead - I would have to agree with you on assassinations. A similar thing was said in one of the Star Movies.... something like "the good of the many outweigh the good of the one".
I am advocating assassinations, so obviously a precedent would be good.
My argument is that assassinating a leader is far better in my opinion than killing off thousands of soldiers and civilians.
[b]The question is whether it really is that one guy who is the cause of the problem, or the entire
leadership structure, or the people at large.
T ld it have cost more, or less?
2. Would there have been more or less casualties on both sides?[/b]
My friends didn't comment on my FB/Twitter on that particular incident, while they had commented on other matters. However, on Twitter, you get to see other peoples posts as and when they post and there was an appalling silence...
@Googlefudge - I disagree about the difference between terrorist organisations and countries. The Sri Lankan Tamil terrorist group (LTTE) assassinated Rajiv Gandhi the then PM of India.
@ Voidspirit - .... "nobody killed bin laden, he's been dead for many years. they just closed the chapter to give obama some street-cred." I don't get your meaning. Do you mean that he was already dead and the encounter was just faked?
@ whodey - "The cancer are not these dictators, they are the symptom of something more sinister at work"... What is that sinister thing?
@ Karoly - well written, especially the fourth point. I do believe that the local population have to learn the lesson of democracy and not just blindly supporting a dictator.
Originally posted by Rajk999No. You miss my point entirely. And I'm fairly sure you do it on purpose.
So ? Should the US stop the war and the search for Bin Laden when the number of deaths reached 3,000?
Gezz Rajk, I was totally with you when you were pointing out the defincies about the JWs,etc. and now it seems as you have become one of my main detractors.
Judging by your posts you dont really have a good grasp on what sort of person I am so just back off,eh.
(Or was it that obscenity that I ONCE posted to you that made you bitter towards me? Whatever it was, all i want to do is "get along", but I will not sacrifice my truth for the sake of getting along so....so what now? the ball is in your court)
qqOriginally posted by VoidSpiritSo you are just starting another conspiracy theory. I don't think there was any conspiracy to keep them alive to justify war, although I do think the Bush administration was being bloodthirsty in attacking Iraq, more like "finishing what Daddy started and was too cowardly to go to Baghdad" kind of thing and Cheney was just short of evil IMHO.
that's what i'm saying.
That aside, Bin Laden deserved to die, I don't think there is any controversy over that but the US government should have gone with full force to find Bin Laden right after 9-11 rather than attack Iraq, for one thing, it would have kept Iran and Iraq at loggerheads, fighting each other and not trying to take over the whole middle east like Iran is trying now.
I don't think there is anyone with a sane mind who would think now that Iran is after nukes and would use them as insane as that would be considering Israel already has them and would use them immediately if Tel Aviv were nuked.
If a team could be sent to off Bin Laden or Hitler or Pol Pot or Idi Amin I would be all for it, assuming we could leave a strong enough message for someone else to just step in and be as ruthless as that lot.
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou sound very hateful to me in this post. Did he hurt your pride?
No. You miss my point entirely. And I'm fairly sure you do it on purpose.
Gezz Rajk, I was totally with you when you were pointing out the defincies about the JWs,etc. and now it seems as you have become one of my main detractors.
Judging by your posts you dont really have a good grasp on what sort of person I am so just back off,eh.
(Or was it ...[text shortened]... acrifice my truth for the sake of getting along so....so what now? the ball is in your court)
Originally posted by sonhouseIt has been determined through investigations that the Bush administration
So you are just starting another conspiracy theory. I don't think there was any conspiracy to keep them alive to justify war, although I do think the Bush administration was being bloodthirsty in attacking Iraq, more like "finishing what Daddy started and was too cowardly to go to Baghdad" kind of thing and Cheney was just short of evil IMHO.
That asid ...[text shortened]... ve a strong enough message for someone else to just step in and be as ruthless as that lot.
was provided with incomplete and wrong intelligence that Bush and Cheney
based their decision for a need to act quickly against Irag. Saddam Hussein
did not help matters by being so secretive and not cooperating completely
with investigators.
1 edit
Originally posted by shahenshahFunny how we supported Bin Laden as long as he was fighting the Soviets.
When Bin Laden was killed, the US President commented that "the head of the snake is killed." I repeated the same thing on Facebook and Twitter but I noticed that there was an amazing silence on FB and Twitter.
So here are the issues....
1) Whether it is right to kill a man because he was so evil and caused so many innocents to die? The 10 command like taking out a cancer; and bring about much good.
Your views Biblical or otherwise...
Because of the rank hypocrisy of US foreign policy, I do not think we are morally qualified to determine who is worthy of assassination and who is not. Plus the ever present danger exists of a policy of assassination being expanded to include not just notable terrorists and foreign dictators, but also domestic political dissenters. The threat of an expanding US police state is at least as great of a threat as the potential terrorist plots it is supposedly countering.
Originally posted by rwingettBut neither are you morally qualified to determine who is worthy of all out war. In fact, the US shouldn't be interfering in other countries business at all. But you do.
Because of the rank hypocrisy of US foreign policy, I do not think we are morally qualified to determine who is worthy of assassination and who is not.
So I would rather you assassinate the leaders that you really have a problem and stop killing innocent civilians all the time.
Originally posted by karoly aczelI have nothing personal against you Karoly .. certainly no animosity so dont get wound up. If we disagree with each others views which will certainly happen from time to time then lets take it in good stride. 🙂
No. You miss my point entirely. And I'm fairly sure you do it on purpose.
Gezz Rajk, I was totally with you when you were pointing out the defincies about the JWs,etc. and now it seems as you have become one of my main detractors.
Judging by your posts you dont really have a good grasp on what sort of person I am so just back off,eh.
(Or was it ...[text shortened]... acrifice my truth for the sake of getting along so....so what now? the ball is in your court)
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am against assassination, war and the rank hypocrisy of US foreign policy. Assassinations will not be the panacea you make them out to be. Such a policy would create more discord than it would prevent.
But neither are you morally qualified to determine who is worthy of all out war. In fact, the US shouldn't be interfering in other countries business at all. But you do.
So I would rather you assassinate the leaders that you really have a problem and stop killing innocent civilians all the time.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettExplain why. Do you think it would not save lives?
I am against assassination, war and the rank hypocrisy of US foreign policy. Assassinations will not be the panacea you make them out to be. Such a policy would create more discord than it would prevent.
I am against war in general, but I recognise that occasionally force is necessary - for example when rescuing people from an evil dictator. But I find the current method - shooting all the people you are trying to rescue, whilst letting the dictator escape - rather old fashioned.
If someone has to die, even one soldier or civilian then let it be the leader.