.com.unity Forums - OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Shrapnel General (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=14)

- - OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=20716)

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis

Phoenix-D

I am surprised you take offence to the dicussion of a 'soft' target.

Yet the whole statement of destroying a culture and its people does not even register or bring enough out for you to comment on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis

Quote:

tesco samoa said:
Most convential attacks with missles / bombs / troops etc... are based on a grid location. What happens to be located there or beside it is intentionaly included in estimates for colleratal damage.

I do not understand what your saying with the pistol and death penalty.

There is intent in every action. It is the outcomes and results that vary.

It is not, however, intentionally targeted. Collateral damage is just that; its damage that is done in the process of destroying a target. It would certainly help if people would stop putting military installations next to (or in certain cases, ON) schools, holy sites, and the like..

There is not intent in every action. Under our legal system, to explain the pistol action better, there are three types of murder:

Third-degree (or manslaughter): You killed someone, but it wasn't intentional.

Second-degree: you killed them but didn't plan their death ahead of time, it wasn't in cold blood

First degree: You not only killed them intentionally, you planned it out ahead of time.

The difference between third and second is the difference between a 5 year prison sentence and 20 years to life; the difference between second and first is the difference between 20 years to life and the death penalty.

That's where the pistol comes in, for your view there doesn't seem to be any difference between them. The act in all cases is the same..so a third degree murderer still deserves the death penalty.

I'm not saying this fine distinction appeals all that much to people who've been hurt unjustly by US attacks, but it doesn't appeal much to families of murder victims either..

EDIT: as for your other comment I haven't read the rest of the thread yet.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis

ok... well maybe you should because i am not going into a dicussion with you about a comment i made when you have not even read why it written.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis

Quote:

Yef said:
Islamic terrorism is a deadly enemy that will not give up or give in, so the only way is to defeat them by using a two prongued attack:
- Destroy their ideology, by taking Mecca and Medina out of the picture. Such a destruction will show them that their god doesn't really exists, since he cannot defend their own holy places, thus demoralizing their followship.
- Support secularism in the Muslim world. Since Islam is not capable of modernizing like other religions did in the 20th century, then Islam have to be eliminated, by making the Muslim world secular, eliminating the power of the religious factions and their hold on education, culture, etc.

Ok, take the same basic statement, only modify a few nouns, and see what you get:

Quote:

Americanism and Westernism is a deadly enemy that will not give up or give in, so the only way is to defeat them by using a two prongued attack:
- Destroy their ideology, by taking New York and Los Angeles out of the picture. Such a destruction will show them that their god (the dollar) doesn't really exists, since he cannot defend their own holy (financial) places, thus demoralizing their followship.
- Support Islam in the infidel world. Since Western ideology is not capable of worshiping Allah, then infidels have to be eliminated, by making the Western world Moslem, eliminating the power of the heathen factions and their hold on education, culture, etc.

And so I ask, your position is different from that of the radical Islamic terrorists, how? As shown above, your statement can faily easily be converted to the mission put forth by various terrorist Groups by simply changing a few words around. So sure, it is possible that your "solution" will eliminate radical Islamic terrorism... but is it really worth it? and what if it has the opposite affect of polarizing the two sides even further, launching everyone into a Third World War?

No, eliminating is not the answer. If we are to fight this "war on terror", then it must be done without ourselves turning into the very ones we are fighting.