[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
If Americans finance the killing of hundreds of thousands of people … are they not legitimate targets if we apply the same standards the US applies to the world?
And please no more fake outrage from you or Hedo, it has become obvious that you are dodging the question.
Orion, here, embraces “group responsibility” or “class guilt,” a concept exercised in the last century to murder countless millions. He marries this to moral relativism–the unthinking link between untargeted muder and perceived “injustice.”
The result of such thinking is horrifying, irresponsible, and seductive when expressed by an otherwise intelligent writer. Why should we ever tolerate this repugnant moral gymnastic?
War is war, with rules of engagement, vilations of which are examined,punished and rare.
Terrorism against civilians is excused, it seems, by ideologues on the other side of the ocean.
That is an interesting analysis, yet misses the mark.
I was asking if it was ok to judge the US the same way it judges the world.
If it is ok to invade a country that harbours and finances terrorists, even though only a small percentage of the population really do so, is it ok to blow up civilians that “harbour and finance” the US military and government EVEN THOUGH, they could get rid of their government much easier than lets say Iraquis or Iranians?
So, on which side of the Atlantic leads thinking in “group responsibility” to start wars that kill hundreds of thousands?
Or to put it into a nutshell:
If the USA can use collective guilt as a reason for violence why can`t they?
No, sorry, no one should fall for this weak rhetorical trap:
Any civilian loss in war is regrettable or execrable.
The US does not target innocent civilians. As a nation, it regrets the loss of civilian life.
And now, it is in an unwanted position: that of referee of a civil war, in which Muslims kill Muslims, far in excess of war casualties–and the US is roundly derogated for the murder of others. Who alone is totally and uniquely responsible in this horror?
The US, as a policy, does not warrant collective punishment. It is a crime.
The same can not said about Islamic “jihadists” and their fellow travelers.
Hedo and others are correct: the US does not target civilians. Terrorists do.
And frankly, the moral relativists will never understand that position. Shame, Orion, that some still believe in moral ideals, which are mourned when violated, while some others celebrate the murder of innocents by trading moral judgment in favor of amoral ideology.
(Lixy, whose moral compass must spin like a gyrocopter, is so devoid of character and historical balance, and is beneath the dignity of comment. Others on this forum may serve truth the best by simply ignoring himi.)
[/quote]
So you are saying that if someone intends to attack civilians that is reason to attack him even if that kills ten times the numbers of civilians unintenionally.
These civilian deaths however, that are more or less taken for granted when starting a war do not constitute a reason for going after American civilians.
So the fine line is that if you take actions that you intend to kill civilians you can be attacked no matter how many civilians that will inevitably kill, but if you only take actions that will lead to the deaths of many more civilians but only as a unintended but forseeable consequence you are not really responsible for their death and therefore attacking your civilians is an outrage.
Did I get it right?
I have such a hard time following moral absolute logic.
