http://www.guardian....aden-dead-obama
Does the vietnam war's 70% civilian casualty rate count, with it's many documented acts of genocide (2 million civilians)? Or the 2nd gulf war's 90% civilian casualty rate (400,000 civilians)?
No, slaughtering hundreds or thousands of innocent people based on nothing but their nationality or their belief system would lower us to the level of terrorists.
Does the vietnam war's 70% civilian casualty rate count, with it's many documented acts of genocide (2 million civilians)? Or the 2nd gulf war's 90% civilian casualty rate (400,000 civilians)?
[quote name='Fox89' timestamp='1304337525' post='4805370']
No, slaughtering hundreds or thousands of innocent people based on nothing but their nationality or their belief system would lower us to the level of terrorists.
[color="#1C2837"]Would you celebrate the death of the men who ordered these acts? [/quote]
If the goal was to do so because they are evil men, yes. If not, perhaps not. Am I happy about the innocents killed in Iraq during the hunt for Saddam Hussein? No, of course not. But at least now he can't commit atrocities any more. The innocent deaths along the way are a tragedy, and should not be trivialised, of course not, their lives are every bit as important as those killed on 9/11, for example. But can Hussein systematically attempt to exterminate entire races now? No. Something worthwhile has come out of the war, not just misery and death. Lives have been saved as well as lost.
There is a slight difference between people who cause terrible things to happen because of poor execution of good intentions than people whose GOAL it is to cause terrible things to happen. I can't comment on Vietnam or the 90's sanctions as I am highly ignorant of the circumstances of those events. But the recent war I can. I'm not trying to paint George W. Bush as a saint or anything, I dislike him as much as anyone, and I won't feel bad when he dies. But I won't celebrate either because at the end of the day, his existence was not dedicated to the destruction of peaceful people. This is where the likes of Bush differ from the likes of Hussein and bin Laden, who felt exactly that was their duty.
Intentions doesn't mean Jack shit. Actions do. Maybe The intentions of Churchill was nice, when they bombed Drezda, Americans were nice when they bombed the shit out of Tokio/Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I don't give a shit. It wasn't any better than the Holocaust IMHO just the numbers were different.
Intentions doesn't mean Jack shit. Actions do. Maybe The intentions of Churchill was nice, when they bombed Drezda, Americans were nice when they bombed the shit out of Tokio/Hiroshima/Nagasaki. I don't give a shit. It wasn't any better than the Holocaust IMHO just the numbers were different.
I agree, mostly. I can agree that all those events you mentioned were horrible, horrible deeds. Intentions only come into it after the people responsible are gone. If you can ask yourself the question "Is there likely to be less death and misery in the world now that this person is no longer in it?" and the answer comes back "yes", that seems like a good enough reason to be happy. Do you not think? That's why I celebrate (if you can call it that, I'm not cheering in the streets, I simply admit that it makes me feel a little happy) Bin Laden's death. Not because I think it is justice, but because I think 'he can no longer orchestrate and fund attacks that kill thousands'. I don't see what part of that attitude is such a bad thing that people find reprehensible.
The hipocrisy of it.
