Is it ok to kill children?

[Rusky]

If the bible is any compass, parts of it suggest the answer is yes for much lesser "crimes"

Heres a compass.
Mark 12 - 31
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

NIV
The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[a] There is no commandment greater than these.”

I'm not sure where the hate or the killing part is. Please explain.

 

[dmnEPC]

Shutup Racist!

As long as a group of men decide in secret that it's ok to kill those brown babies it's ok. It's for your safety. Think of the children in our countries.

Why are you so racist?

 

[wezcountry]

You might as well say that all war is wrong since children are always killed. The only way to truly end a war is utter domination like in WW2. Germany and Japan haven't made much problems since then have they. Likewise, if we want to deal with this muslim scourge once and for all, stop the pussyfooting and move in with all the might of the entire military. Bomb and napalm the shit out of Waziristan and Helmand until there is not a single living thing standing. Tell the people of Karachi who are not Taliban to get out within 10 days, then roll in with a massive force and plant a 100 foot Statue of Liberty.

The muslims need to see overwhelming force and power similar to how the Japanese needed to see their emperor made human.

Do it right or just pick up your rc-plane and go home to mom.

Hmmmm ... tempting but ...

1. WW2 was long time ago and it's probably not a good comparison. For example the ability for revenge attacks on home soil is much greater; I think there are far more people from the targeted countries living in the West; the friends of those countries could decapitate Western economies by switching-off a few pipelines.

2. I don't think a swift end is part of the bigger game plan - George Orwell was right about some things at least.

3. You solution is evil.

 

[lincolndsp]

for the elites who view people as cockroaches there is no such question

 

[acidie]

It's always ok to kill the enemy, no matter how young.

 

[skohh]

No one really gives a shit at the current moment, all eyes are on the fucking royal baby, for Christ sake.

Been waiting to drop this

 

[Veritas]

Exactly.

How can you talk about some dead kids in Pakistan if we still don't know the name of a royal baby?

How can you talk about Pakistani kids living in ruined country if the color of royal baby's room is still not decided?

How can you talk about some drone attacks knowing royal baby was overdue?

These are all non relevant questions til the royal baby comes out the vagina and blesses all of us, bow down bitches.

 

[rusvik]

Hmmmm ... tempting but ...

1. WW2 was long time ago and it's probably not a good comparison. For example the ability for revenge attacks on home soil is much greater; I think there are far more people from the targeted countries living in the West; the friends of those countries could decapitate Western economies by switching-off a few pipelines.

2. I don't think a swift end is part of the bigger game plan - George Orwell was right about some things at least.

3. You solution is evil.

You're right. It was never about winning any war on terrorism. It was about the idea of perpetual war while furthering the geopolitic interests of Israel and her puppet the US. The aim was always at Iran and their oil.

BUT..That is also why this kind of war is the most evil. You either do war to actually win an overwhelming and decisive victory or you don't go to war at all. This is Sun Tzu stuff. Go big or go home.

If the US really wanted they could take out Afghanistan in no time. Might makes right. The peasents over there understand that. They don't understand bullshit about democracy and 'freedom'.

Just accept to be an empire and enjoy it while it lasts. India and Pakistan benefited greatly from British rule.

 

[p0ck3taces]

It depends on the circumstances.

You may be guilty of manslaughter or criminal negligence if you open fire knowing that if you miss you may hit someone innocent.

A gun is designed to easily target one person, unlike a bomb.

If the bullet passed through the aggressor and inadvertently hits Ann than it may be the aggressors fault. It'd be a freak tragedy.

I'd need more details and I'm not a judge.

On the other hand, when you talk about "stopping terrorism" how many people killed by drone strikes have ever aggressed against you? Zero.

So yeah, all joking aside, killing kids with bombs is never justified.

I wasn't joking. The point was as long as you justify killing for ANY reason, innocent bystanders will inevitably be involved. Yes, even the children.. Especially the children.

 

[kingofsp]

The muslims need to see overwhelming force and power similar to how the Japanese needed to see their emperor made human.

The Japanese were willing to surrender prior to the use of atomic bombs, under the condition that their emperor could stay in place and that he wouldn't be subject to any war crime trials after the war. Truman was aware of this, yet decided to murder hundreds of thousands of people (mostly women and children) with two atomic bombs anyway. After Japan had no choice but to proceed with an unconditional surrender, they were allowed to keep their emperor (who remained until his death) and he never faced trial for any war crimes.

 

[erect]

The way you've framed the question, it's obvious you're pandering for votes. Why is it any less moral to kill babby than full grown humans?

 

[rusvik]

The Japanese were willing to surrender prior to the use of atomic bombs, under the condition that their emperor could stay in place and that he wouldn't be subject to any war crime trials after the war. Truman was aware of this, yet decided to murder hundreds of thousands of people (mostly women and children) with two atomic bombs anyway. After Japan had no choice but to proceed with an unconditional surrender, they were allowed to keep their emperor (who remained until his death) and he never faced trial for any war crimes.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the jewbomb.

But consider that the emperor was similar to the Mullah of Iran.

 

[qibrandmgmt]

Been waiting to drop this

Well, his balls work...no proof the sperm was delivered penisely....

 

[Andrew Scherer]

I did some quick maths.

Every time a drone strike kills someone, there's a 1 in 10 chance its a child.

That is a nice PSA headline isn't it?

 

[JakeStratham]

I hope guerilla will not mind my adding a question of my own (more food for thought, if you will).

First, 2 assumptions:

1. every president will eventually order actions he knows will result in civilian casualties - from the usage of drones to boots on the ground in foreign territories.

2. every congressperson will eventually vote in favor of an action he knows will result in civilian casualties at some point in his political career.

My question: assuming the 2 points above, are voters not complicit in the death of each civilian?

Here is another way to put it: isn't an electoral vote an endorsement of the future actions of the individuals elected to office? If so, does not such an endorsement through voluntary participation (i.e. casting a vote) make one guilty of murder after those actions have been ordered and carried out?

In other words, if you voted for Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, or any member of congress, are you not complicit in the deaths of innocent children?

 

[dreamscape]

Yes as long as it's not mine

 

[Jon]

Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes - Salon.com

Does stopping "terrorism" make it ok to kill children?

Is it legal?

Is it moral?

Is it Christian?

If it is "ok" that kids get killed during war, wouldn't that make it ok to bomb civilians?

If "they" did it first, have two wrongs ever made a right?

If it is ok to kill a Pakistani child, is it ok to kill an American child?

Food for thought.

None of this is food for thought. In fact, its something that needs to be accepted or not.

The people involved in war, whichever war it is, and whatever its objections or goals, all must accept that in war, people die. Civilians and soldiers alike. You cannot have any reservations over it. You just need to accept it, as a human being, that in war, shit happens, and there is always blowback in all sorts of ways, shapes and forms. If you cannot or refuse to accept it, you will have a moral conflict within yourself for many years to come. Accept it, and bury it.

The sole purpose of all of these weapon systems and the military too, are to kill other humans. Missiles and mines alike, call them "anti-personnel weapon systems" or A FUCKING MINE, and its objective is the same. Its meant to neutralize an enemy before they have time to kill any of our side's people. Simple. You don't call in the military and clandestine agencies to just "bomb the terrorists, but don't hurt any kids". While that's a lovely thought, its bullshit in practice. Not realistic at all. Those children, have legs, so they move, and many times, they were on the move into the kill zone area (that they were unaware of anyway) and were chalked up as "collateral damage" by the other side after the strike. Is this right? No. But its war, and people die in wars. Not all, but most. That's the fucking point of war...

We as civilians have an entirely different perspective and attitude towards this topic, and therefore, as a people, we need to decide, whether its a yes or a no, to green-light our military or clandestine agencies to be 'absolved of all risk and liability' outside the battlefield. We cannot morally justify any of this from a case by case or per person type perspective.

If the goal is to kill terrorists, then CIA will kill them, using any means necessary to get the job done. If the military and CIA together both formally agree to ROE where a kill order is issued and civilians may become collateral damage from the strike, and that the target is "worth the risk", then so be it, if they say its okay, then its okay, and that's the end of it.

I know its a very fucked up way of looking at it. But its the only way to legally, morally and ethically justify any of this. So, don't get all "but do the lil children deserve to die or get maimed by our bombs?!" No, they don't deserve it, but that's war. And drone strikes are just another application to carry out a way to somewhat covertly and strategically neutralize a target without risking any of our own citizens or soldiers.

I'm an American, so I value American and our allies lives higher than those of the enemy our agencies and military are fighting. But the same goes for those of the population in the land our boys are fucking shit up in.

This can go on forever...

:angrysoapbox_sml:

 

[erect]

... And drone strikes are just another application to carry out a way to somewhat covertly and strategically neutralize a target without risking any of our own citizens or soldiers.

I'm an American, so I value American and our allies lives higher than those of the enemy our agencies and military are fighting. But the same goes for those of the population in the land our boys are fucking shit up in.

This can go on forever...

Here's the problem with this line of thinking as a civilian ... Our country is only CURRENTLY in power and everything that has a beginning has an end (neo).

Ask the romans who got sacked by the Visigoths (and multiple other times in a few hundred years) how it feels to be treated exactly as the roman army treated other cultures for 1000+ years. The golden rule trumps all others.

This can go on forever...

... and without a little foresight it will.

My 2c: While Asia might not be as creative or entrepreneurial as Americans, they are techie enough & have manufacturing savvy. It takes zero creativity to copy an idea (like drones or stuxnet) and mass produce them. Bigger, stronger, faster yet smaller computers opens the door to nanotechnology (that can still go bang) which would be almost impossible to defend against unless we EMP every square inch. Scorched earth motherfucker.

So where does that leave us in 100 years?

Those who don't know history are doomed repeat it

If we continue to be numb to the bloody policies of those in charge we're flat out paving the way for the genocide of our offspring.

 

[p0ck3taces]

I did some quick maths.

Every time a drone strike kills someone, there's a 1 in 10 chance its a child.

That is a nice PSA headline isn't it?

Sounds like a good infograph idea. I might just have to draw that one up.

 

[momchil9]

Here's the problem with this line of thinking as a civilian ... Our country is only CURRENTLY in power and everything that has a beginning has an end (neo).

Ask the romans who got sacked by the Visigoths (and multiple other times in a few hundred years) how it feels to be treated exactly as the roman army treated other cultures for 1000+ years. The golden rule trumps all others.



... and without a little foresight it will.

My 2c: While Asia might not be as creative or entrepreneurial as Americans, they are techie enough & have manufacturing savvy. It takes zero creativity to copy an idea (like drones or stuxnet) and mass produce them. Bigger, stronger, faster yet smaller computers opens the door to nanotechnology (that can still go bang) which would be almost impossible to defend against unless we EMP every square inch. Scorched earth motherfucker.

So where does that leave us in 100 years?



If we continue to be numb to the bloody policies of those in charge we're flat out paving the way for the genocide of our offspring.

word.