Pat Tillman and Mohammad Atta: Ethical Equals?

Morally superior?

You must be feeling morally inferior.

You want to know which school morally equates killing civilians and legitimate military targets?

The school of the end justifies the means of course.

Regarding 911, along with the rest of the world I tended to support the initial actions in Afghanistan with some reservations of course (too bad they didn't finish the job, but they need the troops for Saddam....), but at least in that strike there was world wide agreement and also as there was a much clearer cause and effect argument.

As far as Tillman goes, he had his own agenda. Neither you, nor I will even know what his real reasons were.

He is considered a hero in this country, in other countries they consider their patriots heroes too.





Quote from spect8or:

ART, you know very well that that is no answer.

So answer my question, which school of 'secular ethics', as you put it, morally equates killing 'clearly' innocent civillians and 'legitimate' military targets?

And what do you think? How could you possibly miss that I asked you this? Come now, don't just sit there acting all morally superior, let us know your position.

Furthermore, even with Japan, a case could be made that given the all-encompassing nature of the conflict, in which entire countries' economies were ruled by the war effort, it could reasonably be established that an entire city's daily activities are a direct support to the country's forces and that vanquishing such a city could be reasonably expected to impact the enemy so greatly that defeat or surrender would be imminent, a decision to carry out such action may be thus legitimated.

This stands in stark contrast to 9.11, in which a state of all-encompassing war did not exist between the US and another nation, and even if a state of a limited, subversive 'war' was claimed, the same state of all-out effort to win such a war wasn't present and thus it could not be argued that an attack solely on New York could in any way be expected to cause a US defeat or 'surrender'.

As I said, I don't want to get sidetracked. If you like, assume that Japan was 'wrong'. Where does that leave you with 9.11 and Tillman?
 
I do argue for moral absolutes.

Start with this one:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Quote from spect8or:

Lol. You sound like someone that just woke up to the fact that proving moral positions is a nigh on impossible task. Well, umm, duh!.

And this from someone that not so long ago was arguing for moral absolutes. Dude, for someone so long-winded, you sure don't seem terribly well informed about that which you discuss.


And your desire for "absolute consistency of foreign policy" is about as a perfect example of left-wing liberal thinking as you can find; their major grievance, as always, is that something, be it socio-economic equality, gender issues, foreign policy, isn't absolutely perfect, and would the real world kindly step aside thank you.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:
You are confused.
Just exactly what isn't clear?

Art... You made the statement, and I quote:
"It is equally pointless to negotiate with anyone who will kill you if you don't agree with their position."

And I responded with, and I quote:
"....are you saying that it is equally pointless for the terrorists to negotiate with the United States because the U.S. will kill them anyway for not agreeing with them?"

Now you made a direct statement and I asked a direct question to which I expected a direct answer. Now if you can’t or chose not to answer it directly, then I understand completely...that is your right...however, if you yourself can’t be accountable for what you say, then how can possibly expect anyone else to engage in a conversation with you? Wait...never mind that last question, just answer the original question if you can and then we’ll work on that last question.
 
"....are you saying that it is equally pointless for the terrorists to negotiate with the United States because the U.S. will kill them anyway for not agreeing with them?"

This is such a poorly written question, if it is a question, that may be the problem.

It assumes I believe the US will kill them no matter what. That is not my belief, but it is their belief that matters in a negotiation. I assume we will take advantage of them economically in our never ending consumption and capitalism habit, but I don't assume we will kill then unnecessarily. If we can keep them alive to be our economic slaves, that would be the USA's goal.

However, it would be pointless to negotiate with someone who was going to kill you no matter what you said or did.

The point, which may escape you, is that if someone believes that negotiation is futile, and will result in their death, then they will assume a die fighting position. WTF, they are going to kill me anyway so I might as well kill some of them on the way out the door mentality.

These people are willing to kill themselves for their cause. There is great power in that.


Quote from mytwocents:

Art... You made the statement, and I quote:
"It is equally pointless to negotiate with anyone who will kill you if you don't agree with their position."

And I responded with, and I quote:
"....are you saying that it is equally pointless for the terrorists to negotiate with the United States because the U.S. will kill them anyway for not agreeing with them?"

Now you made a direct statement and I asked a direct question to which I expected a direct answer. Now if you can’t or chose not to answer it directly, then I understand completely...that is your right...however, if you yourself can’t be accountable for what you say, then how can possibly expect anyone else to engage in a conversation with you? Wait...never mind that last question, just answer the original question if you can and then we’ll work on that last question.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:
"....are you saying that it is equally pointless for the terrorists to negotiate with the United States because the U.S. will kill them anyway for not agreeing with them?"
This is such a poorly written question, if it is a question, that may be the problem.
It assumes I believe the US will kill them no matter what. That is not my belief, but it is their belief that matters in a negotiation. I assume we will take advantage of them economically in our never ending consumption and capitalism habit, but I don't assume we will kill then unnecessarily. If we can keep them alive to be our economic slaves, that would be the USA's goal.
However, it would be pointless to negotiate with someone who was going to kill you no matter what you said or did.
The point, which may escape you, is that if someone believes that negotiation is futile, and will result in their death, then they will assume a die fighting position. WTF, they are going to kill me anyway so I might as well kill some of them on the way out the door mentality.
These people are willing to kill themselves for their cause. There is great power in that.

OK, my 'poorly worded question' just took your statement and put actual entities in it...so I'll plug in my 'assumptions' (and please recall that I asked you to clarify if I was understanding your statement correctly, before I responded...)
It is equally pointless to negotiate with anyone (the U.S.) who will kill you (the terrorists) if you (the terrorists) don't agree with their (the U.S.) position.

So if it was poorly worded then I guess you should try and word your statements better in the future.
 
All of you fell of the boat to the left side, peace loving, the world should be a perfect place, fundemantal Islam doe not promote terror but the US does are a bunch of f**king retards.

As for the terrorists that blew up the WTC. How can any true American even remotely try to smpathize with them? The only thing that they understand is a he who has the biggest gun and is not afraid to use it rules. You can't reason with the fundemental militants, they do not understand negotiations.

Those challenged by the logic of the real worls do nothing but complain. I havne't heard or seen one of them come up with a viable alternative to the course of action that the US has taken. I wouldn't look to the UN either. They are good for nothing. I wouldn;t trust them on military or security matters as far as I could thow them. Hell it appears that they can not even provide aid to those who need it without skimming off of the top. Talk about ethical.

The liberal weenies need to grow up and face the reality of the world they live in and realize that it is not a perfect place and that there are people out there who would just as soon kill you as look at you because you have a different belief system.

I personally would love to travel to the middle east and experience the history of the region. However as an American I am a prime target for the damned radicals who hate all things American because of the "poison" that they bring. Mind you that poison is the concept of thinking for myself without having a cleric or Imam deciding for me.

Grow up you liberal weenies!
 
You blame your poorly worded question on a statement you say is poorly worded......and you say you were confused? No doubt.


Quote from mytwocents:

OK, my 'poorly worded question' just took your statement and put actual entities in it...so I'll plug in my 'assumptions' (and please recall that I asked you to clarify if I was understanding your statement correctly, before I responded...)
It is equally pointless to negotiate with anyone (the U.S.) who will kill you (the terrorists) if you (the terrorists) don't agree with their (the U.S.) position.

So if it was poorly worded then I guess you should try and word your statements better in the future.
 
The "liberal weenies" did and do understand the mentality of those who would rather kill you as look at you.

In fact, they stood up against them peacefully right here in the good old US of A when they risked their lives for the rights of black Americans in the South, American Indians, migrant workers, those racially profiled, women, gays, etc., etc., etc., etc.,

Quote from Burtakus:

All of you fell of the boat to the left side, peace loving, the world should be a perfect place, fundemantal Islam doe not promote terror but the US does are a bunch of f**king retards.

As for the terrorists that blew up the WTC. How can any true American even remotely try to smpathize with them? The only thing that they understand is a he who has the biggest gun and is not afraid to use it rules. You can't reason with the fundemental militants, they do not understand negotiations.

Those challenged by the logic of the real worls do nothing but complain. I havne't heard or seen one of them come up with a viable alternative to the course of action that the US has taken. I wouldn't look to the UN either. They are good for nothing. I wouldn;t trust them on military or security matters as far as I could thow them. Hell it appears that they can not even provide aid to those who need it without skimming off of the top. Talk about ethical.

The liberal weenies need to grow up and face the reality of the world they live in and realize that it is not a perfect place and that there are people out there who would just as soon kill you as look at you because you have a different belief system.

I personally would love to travel to the middle east and experience the history of the region. However as an American I am a prime target for the damned radicals who hate all things American because of the "poison" that they bring. Mind you that poison is the concept of thinking for myself without having a cleric or Imam deciding for me.

Grow up you liberal weenies!
 
What a brilliant association!!!!

What you posted below about Truman is one of the darkest and least known aspects of WW2- nuking Japan was an unnecessary act of terrorism mainly meant to terrorize the USSR and the rest of the world.

The blood on the hands of and denial in this nation run spectacularly deep.


Quote from ARogueTrader:

The school that concludes killing civilians will end a war sooner than not.

Truman visited this school before he dropped the bomb on non military targets.


In late July 1945, General Douglas MacArthur (Commander in Chief of all Allied Forces in the Pacific/Asiatic Theater) had received news that Japan was seeking a meeting with the Russians to draft plans for formal a surrender. MacArthur decided to cease his plan to continue with operations to invade Japan (Operations Olympia and Coronet) which were slated for early to mid 1946. In his mind Japan was completely decimated and had lost the ability to conduct war. Days later MacArthur was upset that the US government decided to drop atomic bombs on Japanese civilian targets at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (After the bombs had fallen the general was said to been shaken and despondent.)

Many Japanese today can remember that Japan was "almost completely flat" with no buildings standing in the major cities during 1944-post WW2. The war was escalating in the numbers of atrocities or the neglect of sympathy to civilians as targets for war. Feb 13-14th 1944, Dresden, Germany was fire bombed by Allied aircraft for no apparent reason. It was a non military target known for its medieval architecture and ceramics. Dresden was a civilian target yet over 60,000 civilians were killed and many more homeless.

Tokyo had been fire bombed March 9-10, 1945 and some 83,000 civilians burned to death and thousands homeless. US B29 bomber crews commented on the stench of burning bodies when they made low level passes over Tokyo. "Brigadier General Bonner Feller described the air raids as the most ruthless and barbaric killings of non-combatants in all history"

There are quite a few people today who argue that dropping the atomic bombs saved lives?

The actual invasion for Japan (if there was one going to be held) was nearly 6-9 months away. Wasn't there enough time to finalize a formal surrender with the Allies and Japan? By May 7th 1945, Germany had formally surrendered.......

The surrender for Japan was going to come about soon. Emperor Hirohito actually stopped all Kamikaze missions and wished to make peace with the Allies through the Russians (May 1945). The conclusion that dropping the atomic bombs was in order to save lives was made after the war was over and was not the initial reason why the atomic bombs were dropped. The atom bombs were dropped to intimidate the Russians and let them know who had the real power in the world at that time. It became the start of the Cold War.

Stalin had spies in Los Alamos and had already had news of the bomb and had plans to build their own.

So was dropping the atomic bombs really neccesary to end WW2? If you examine the atomic bombs casualties you may not think so: On August 6th 1945, "Little Boy" was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan near the (Shima Hospital). In Hiroshima alone there were some 150,000 deaths in the first 2-3 months mostly seniors, women, and children. Months later the total would be over (300,000 dead).

This included more than 10,000 Koreans and some 3000 or more Chinese who resided in Hiroshima or were conscripted by the Japanese military for labor. It is estimated some 30,000 Koreans would die in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. This number included small numbers of Indonesian, Taiwanese, Thai, and other students studying in Japan or who were trapped there for the duration of the war. Also an estimated 250 Allied POW's perished in the atom bombings.

On August 9th, 1945," Fat Man" was dropped on Nagasaki killing over 140,000 people.

There is some strong speculation that the numbers of deaths were much higher since all of the major cities were destroyed in Japan. Many civilians congregated to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for relief and shelter. Some Japanese sources claim nearly 1,000,000 deaths that occurred from radiation poisoning and fallout in the following 25 years after the bombs were dropped.

The escalation of this type of warfare had led up to a nuclear holocaust that took the lives of unarmed civilians mostly women and children. There were so few weapons in Japan that teenage girls were learning to fight with bamboo spears in case an Allied invasion would come. The horrors of the atom bombs was almost too frightening to be written about. No film could capture its horror and depth of suffering. Radiation sickness, cancers, and blindness. Thousands of people would carry the disfiguring burns and radiation scars for a lifetime. Thousands would die in the next fifty years from strange maladies.

There were several hundred Japanese Americans who died in the bombings. They were mostly Kibei's (American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were studying in Japan before the war broke out) Some 1000 or so returned to America after the war as American Hibakusha (atomic bomb survivors). Many Japanese American families lost relatives and friends in both bombing raids while still residing in US concentration camps. Many Nisei veterans serving in Europe and the Pacific Theaters were saddened after hearing the news that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were obliterated.
 
Back
Top