women and children

mikepegg44 · May 2011

This is a simple question to which I feel I may get people a little heated with my answer...I am not intentionally antagonizing...

If an enemy combabtant is consistently hiding in and amongst women and children...and those women and children are killed...who is ultimately responsible?
The person who dropped the bomb, or the person who intentionally brought women and children into harms way?

gimmesometruth27 · May 2011

the fault always lies with the one who pulled the trigger. without the trigger being pulled or a bomb being dropped, nobody gets killed. there are ways of taking people alive, and surgical strikes designed to avoid civilian casualties..

wolfamongwolves · May 2011

Obviously if someone chooses to drop a bomb, knowing that there are innocent women and children in harm's way, then that person is responsible for their deaths.

Someone who uses them as a human shield is directly responsible only for putting them in danger - not for their deaths, since that is dependent on whether the person with the deadly weapon chooses to use it on them or not.

polaris_x · May 2011

well ... without nitpicking at the example you've chosen ... i would say the person who killed the women and children ... unless you consider collateral damage as necessary ... which i do not ... heck, the use of violence is ridiculous to begin with ...

in any case, police car chases (at least here) are called off if speeds reach unsafe limits ... police do not fire in crowded areas when apprehending a criminal ... that's why these things are done in the middle of the night generally ...

although i know the issue you are trying to address ... what should really concern us is why are people dropping bombs and why are people fighting!?? ... once you come to the realization that greed is the answer - you will see the necessity for your original question is no longer there ...

mikepegg44 · May 2011

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Obviously if someone chooses to drop a bomb, knowing that there are innocent women and children in harm's way, then that person is responsible for their deaths.

Someone who uses them as a human shield is directly responsible only for putting them in danger - not for their deaths, since that is dependent on whether the person with the deadly weapon chooses to use it on them or not.

that is a nice distinction, I have wrestled with it for a while...I think that the people who choose to put them in danger are the worst of the worst, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the "force for good" to avoid the killing of the innocent.

Go Beavers · May 2011

Is the person responsible the one who pulls the trigger, drops the bomb, gives the orders, or the one who declared war?

Responsibility in war is always interesting because it challenges a lot of beliefs people have around responsibility for self and decisions people make.

he still stands · May 2011

both.

would you do either, under any circumstance? I wouldn't... only a madman would.

polaris_x · May 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

that is a nice distinction, I have wrestled with it for a while...I think that the people who choose to put them in danger are the worst of the worst, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the "force for good" to avoid the killing of the innocent.

no ... using any means necessary to not die is not the worst of the worst ... making decisions that will result in the death of millions of innocent people based on greed is the worst of the worst ... see cheney, bush and rumsfield ...

SEACIDE · May 2011

Here's another question to ponder......
If the person doesn't pull the trigger to avoid collatral damage then do they bear any responsibility when the person hiding behind women and children kills other innocents? Not saying I have the answers....all I know is war sucks....but war is war.

SEACIDE · May 2011

polaris_x wrote:

well ... without nitpicking at the example you've chosen ... i would say the person who killed the women and children ... unless you consider collateral damage as necessary ... which i do not ... heck, the use of violence is ridiculous to begin with ...

in any case, police car chases (at least here) are called off if speeds reach unsafe limits ... police do not fire in crowded areas when apprehending a criminal ... that's why these things are done in the middle of the night generally ...

although i know the issue you are trying to address ... what should really concern us is why are people dropping bombs and why are people fighting!?? ... once you come to the realization that greed is the answer - you will see the necessity for your original question is no longer there ...

I don't think Bin Laden was greedy.....his motivating force was religion.

mikepegg44 · May 2011

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

that is a nice distinction, I have wrestled with it for a while...I think that the people who choose to put them in danger are the worst of the worst, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the "force for good" to avoid the killing of the innocent.

no ... using any means necessary to not die is not the worst of the worst ... making decisions that will result in the death of millions of innocent people based on greed is the worst of the worst ... see cheney, bush and rumsfield ...

using any means necessary not to die does not have to include cowardly and DELIBERATELY putting women and children in harms way, but I do understand your necessity to work in a shot at the US government. This thread isn't about bush, cheney, or rumsfield. It is a simple question to wonder where people put blame...

I agree that the responsibility is ultimately on the person dropping the bomb, but I find it funny that personal responsibility goes on the front seat here when in other areas of life it seems to be tossed aside.
I wonder if I was involved in a gun fight and picked up a kid as a human shield if you would see me as simply doing what was necessary to live, or if you would see me as an evil prick with no regard for human life or others around me

Godfather. · May 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

This is a simple question to which I feel I may get people a little heated with my answer...I am not intentionally antagonizing...

If an enemy combabtant is consistently hiding in and amongst women and children...and those women and children are killed...who is ultimately responsible?
The person who dropped the bomb, or the person who intentionally brought women and children into harms way?

Women and Children died on 9-11 but as I remember there were some people on the train who said they (Usoma's guy's) had good cause to attack on American soil.
also there are too many what if's to your question ,what if the bomb dropers had no idea of the women and children being there ?, sense Vietnam that I know of woman and children killed also and where used as human weapons (bombs) by the enemey, no offense my friend but your asking a question that relates to a war situation and things like bombs killing many inocent people is one the unfortunate partds of war, and if you think about it war as far as the US goes has changed significantly making attacks more pin point and less colladeral damage then in wars past, but in my opinion there is no right or wrong answer to your question
only sad facts.

Godfather.

Godfather. · May 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

that is a nice distinction, I have wrestled with it for a while...I think that the people who choose to put them in danger are the worst of the worst, but ultimately it is the responsibility of the "force for good" to avoid the killing of the innocent.

no ... using any means necessary to not die is not the worst of the worst ... making decisions that will result in the death of millions of innocent people based on greed is the worst of the worst ... see cheney, bush and rumsfield ...

using any means necessary not to die does not have to include cowardly and DELIBERATELY putting women and children in harms way, but I do understand your necessity to work in a shot at the US government. This thread isn't about bush, cheney, or rumsfield. It is a simple question to wonder where people put blame...

I agree that the responsibility is ultimately on the person dropping the bomb, but I find it funny that personal responsibility goes on the front seat here when in other areas of life it seems to be tossed aside.
I wonder if I was involved in a gun fight and picked up a kid as a human shield if you would see me as simply doing what was necessary to live, or if you would see me as an evil prick with no regard for human life or others around me

if a baby had a bomb strapped to it and crying and running to you and your family would shoot the baby with the bomb to save your family ?

Godfather.

mikepegg44 · May 2011

Godfather. wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

using any means necessary not to die does not have to include cowardly and DELIBERATELY putting women and children in harms way, but I do understand your necessity to work in a shot at the US government. This thread isn't about bush, cheney, or rumsfield. It is a simple question to wonder where people put blame...

I agree that the responsibility is ultimately on the person dropping the bomb, but I find it funny that personal responsibility goes on the front seat here when in other areas of life it seems to be tossed aside.
I wonder if I was involved in a gun fight and picked up a kid as a human shield if you would see me as simply doing what was necessary to live, or if you would see me as an evil prick with no regard for human life or others around me

if a baby had a bomb strapped to it and crying and running to you and your family would shoot the baby with the bomb to save your family ?

Godfather.

I am faster than a baby

i would probably distract it with my house keys

I realize what you are saying, and there are tough choices all around...what I was getting at is to discuss the personal responsibility issue as a whole with a specific example that shows both sides of the issue that responsibility is something that is always present...For those, like myself, who are strict personal responsibility types when it comes to living life, I sometimes minimize too much the outside factors that play into the "choices" that a person has...and for those who seem to want to point at mitigating circumstances with little to no consideration for personal responsibility, that people ultimately have the choice...they can always choose to simply "not drop the bomb"...
I don't know...hopefully that makes some sense to at least one person other than myself.

polaris_x · May 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

using any means necessary not to die does not have to include cowardly and DELIBERATELY putting women and children in harms way, but I do understand your necessity to work in a shot at the US government. This thread isn't about bush, cheney, or rumsfield. It is a simple question to wonder where people put blame...

I agree that the responsibility is ultimately on the person dropping the bomb, but I find it funny that personal responsibility goes on the front seat here when in other areas of life it seems to be tossed aside.
I wonder if I was involved in a gun fight and picked up a kid as a human shield if you would see me as simply doing what was necessary to live, or if you would see me as an evil prick with no regard for human life or others around me

i was only responding to your worst of the worst comment ... and i'm sorry you are offended by my comment about bush et al ... sadly ... a lot of people feel that way about them similar to how people feel about BL ... failure to recognize this is why there continues to be guys running into crowds with women and children ...

mikepegg44 · May 2011

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

using any means necessary not to die does not have to include cowardly and DELIBERATELY putting women and children in harms way, but I do understand your necessity to work in a shot at the US government. This thread isn't about bush, cheney, or rumsfield. It is a simple question to wonder where people put blame...

I agree that the responsibility is ultimately on the person dropping the bomb, but I find it funny that personal responsibility goes on the front seat here when in other areas of life it seems to be tossed aside.
I wonder if I was involved in a gun fight and picked up a kid as a human shield if you would see me as simply doing what was necessary to live, or if you would see me as an evil prick with no regard for human life or others around me

i was only responding to your worst of the worst comment ... and i'm sorry you are offended by my comment about bush et al ... sadly ... a lot of people feel that way about them similar to how people feel about BL ... failure to recognize this is why there continues to be guys running into crowds with women and children ...

I didn't vote for them, nor do I support what they did, but you have to admit, it was a stretch to bring them into the discussion considering they weren't mentioned at all before you did it...it was a general discussion about a moral issue, not specific to anything but that...Failure to realize that Bush is hated is akin to putting your head in the sand...I don't think anyone here thinks Bush isn't hated outside of the US...that was more the idea of the question...what is the terrorists responsibility?...is it the person who did the act, or the person who "caused" the act that is responsible?

polaris_x · May 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

I didn't vote for them, nor do I support what they did, but you have to admit, it was a stretch to bring them into the discussion considering they weren't mentioned at all before you did it...it was a general discussion about a moral issue, not specific to anything but that...Failure to realize that Bush is hated is akin to putting your head in the sand...I don't think anyone here thinks Bush isn't hated outside of the US...that was more the idea of the question...what is the terrorists responsibility?...is it the person who did the act, or the person who "caused" the act that is responsible?

again ... you said worst of the worst ... it was my response to that ... most people who respond to a comment like that indicate who they think the worst of the worst is ... i think your nationalistic defense mechanism kicked in ... if i said the worst of the worst was some drug dealer in chile ... i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have been as upset at my bringing them into the thread ...

mikepegg44 · May 2011

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I didn't vote for them, nor do I support what they did, but you have to admit, it was a stretch to bring them into the discussion considering they weren't mentioned at all before you did it...it was a general discussion about a moral issue, not specific to anything but that...Failure to realize that Bush is hated is akin to putting your head in the sand...I don't think anyone here thinks Bush isn't hated outside of the US...that was more the idea of the question...what is the terrorists responsibility?...is it the person who did the act, or the person who "caused" the act that is responsible?

again ... you said worst of the worst ... it was my response to that ... most people who respond to a comment like that indicate who they think the worst of the worst is ... i think your nationalistic defense mechanism kicked in ... if i said the worst of the worst was some drug dealer in chile ... i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have been as upset at my bringing them into the thread ...

I would have still brought you back to the original topic...but you are right, I probably would have ignored it...unless you brought that Chilean drug dealer into every thread on every topic...

Polaris I love the passion, but what about the question?

edit: also my nationalistic defense mechanism has a very long fuse. I just don't like the idea that you seem to think no one in the USA realizes the things you say. I love the passion though

Byrnzie · May 2011

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/topic/6 ... st-israel/

'...As for "terrorism", which [Michael Neumann] defines as "random violence against non-combatants", he distinguishes it from "collateral damage" with the assertion that the latter "involves knowingly killing innocent civilians" while "Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians", concluding that "the moral difference is too academic even for an academic." Why, then, is "terrorism" considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while "collateral damage" tends to be taken in our moral stride?

"Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: 'To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don't need to plant bombs.' As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work."

Byrnzie · May 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

If an enemy combabtant is consistently hiding in and amongst women and children...and those women and children are killed...who is ultimately responsible?

Answer: The people who invaded the 'enemy combatants' country in their pursuit of that country's natural resources.

ajedigecko · May 2011

the enemy who seeks shelter among the innocent....is accountable.

women and children

Comments

Categories