ChatterBank0 min ago
He Is Only A Child????
59 Answers
http://
Several weeks ago I dared to suggest that a cinema somewhere in the Middle East which was being used to show films of executions, should have been bombed, but I was lambasted because there were also children in the audience of that building.
Well I make no apology to all those that said "they are only children" perhaps this little monster was also being radicalised in that cinema.
Several weeks ago I dared to suggest that a cinema somewhere in the Middle East which was being used to show films of executions, should have been bombed, but I was lambasted because there were also children in the audience of that building.
Well I make no apology to all those that said "they are only children" perhaps this little monster was also being radicalised in that cinema.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
retrocop - //If your daughters were picnicking with your grandchildren and this boy approached them with an explosive vest please tell me you would use lethal means at your disposal to prevent your family being blown to kingdom come. //
I would - without a thought, and then I would attempt to live with it afterwards.
Contrary to the tone of the last few posts, I am not so naiive that I would not take protective measures in the circumstances, nor would I stop at protecting myself and my family.
But ... that is not the same as casually advocating shooting children as though we are swatting irritating wasps - we must be keen to avoid casual knee-jerk callousness which sends into the mind sets of the monsters who corrupt their children in this way.
That is the point I am making.
Would I shoot a twelve-year-old to protect innocent people? Yes I would.
Could I ever sleep properly again until the day I die? No I couldn't.
And I would mourn the day that thought ever left me, but I very much doubt it ever would.
I would - without a thought, and then I would attempt to live with it afterwards.
Contrary to the tone of the last few posts, I am not so naiive that I would not take protective measures in the circumstances, nor would I stop at protecting myself and my family.
But ... that is not the same as casually advocating shooting children as though we are swatting irritating wasps - we must be keen to avoid casual knee-jerk callousness which sends into the mind sets of the monsters who corrupt their children in this way.
That is the point I am making.
Would I shoot a twelve-year-old to protect innocent people? Yes I would.
Could I ever sleep properly again until the day I die? No I couldn't.
And I would mourn the day that thought ever left me, but I very much doubt it ever would.
Naomi - //Some, however, have acknowledged that boys like this one are rather more dangerous than irritating wasps. //
No argument there.
My point is that we need to be beware that, in taking reasonable, if drastic steps in the interests of self-protection, we do not adopt anything approaching a casual attitude to the taking of a life - and especially the life of a child.
Circumstances may dictate that such actions are unavoidable, but the willingness to treat such actions lightly is very much avoidable, and must at all costs be avoided - that is the only point I am trying to make on here today.
No argument there.
My point is that we need to be beware that, in taking reasonable, if drastic steps in the interests of self-protection, we do not adopt anything approaching a casual attitude to the taking of a life - and especially the life of a child.
Circumstances may dictate that such actions are unavoidable, but the willingness to treat such actions lightly is very much avoidable, and must at all costs be avoided - that is the only point I am trying to make on here today.
Naomi - //andy-hughes, //Circumstances may dictate that such actions are unavoidable//
... and that's the point others are making here today. //
Not sure about how many are clear on the 'unavoidable' bit - Divebuddy advocates shooting a child on sight, Chaptazbru is in favour of bombing 'the lot', Retrocop advocates a nuclear bomb, and you yourelf advocate shooting - but I suggest that all of those appear to have a cavalier disregard for the morality bound up in shooting a child, and the consequences of it personally afterwards.
I am happy to nail my perceived consequences to the mast, and have done so - others' posts suggest that their sledgehammer / nut interface would not bother them in the slightest, and that is the essence of my point.
I could shoot a child if I had to, but I do not advocate such an action lightly, or imagine it would be without consequences - others do not appear able to say the same, based on what they have posted on this thread.
... and that's the point others are making here today. //
Not sure about how many are clear on the 'unavoidable' bit - Divebuddy advocates shooting a child on sight, Chaptazbru is in favour of bombing 'the lot', Retrocop advocates a nuclear bomb, and you yourelf advocate shooting - but I suggest that all of those appear to have a cavalier disregard for the morality bound up in shooting a child, and the consequences of it personally afterwards.
I am happy to nail my perceived consequences to the mast, and have done so - others' posts suggest that their sledgehammer / nut interface would not bother them in the slightest, and that is the essence of my point.
I could shoot a child if I had to, but I do not advocate such an action lightly, or imagine it would be without consequences - others do not appear able to say the same, based on what they have posted on this thread.
andy-hughes, //Not sure about how many are clear on the 'unavoidable' bit - Divebuddy advocates shooting a child on sight, Chaptazbru is in favour of bombing 'the lot', Retrocop advocates a nuclear bomb, and you yourelf advocate shooting - but I suggest that all of those appear to have a cavalier disregard for the morality bound up in shooting a child, and the consequences of it personally afterwards.//
As I read these posts Divebuddy advocates shooting THIS boy on sight, as do I and sqad advocates shooting a child who is a direct threat to life so to accuse all of having a cavalier disregard for the morality bound up in shooting a child is rather insulting. That aside, idealistic morals emanating from ignorance of the severity of the threat, or from anything else, are useless to the dead. Frankly I think if we are ever to defeat IS, ultimately the only option will be to bomb them.
As I read these posts Divebuddy advocates shooting THIS boy on sight, as do I and sqad advocates shooting a child who is a direct threat to life so to accuse all of having a cavalier disregard for the morality bound up in shooting a child is rather insulting. That aside, idealistic morals emanating from ignorance of the severity of the threat, or from anything else, are useless to the dead. Frankly I think if we are ever to defeat IS, ultimately the only option will be to bomb them.
Naomi - //so to accuse all of having a cavalier disregard for the morality bound up in shooting a child is rather insulting.//
You can of course take that position for yourself if you wish, the others will need to take issue individually, if they choose so to do.
//That aside, idealistic morals emanating from ignorance of the severity of the threat, or from anything else, are useless to the dead.//
You take with one hand, and give with the other - referring to my morals as 'idealistic' is equally insulting - if you don't wish to take it, then please don't dish it out - your loss of the moral high ground as a result is apparent.
As for your solution - bombing IS - aside from the fact that you will necessarily kill innocent men women and children, what do you imagine such action would do for their campaigns, and their recruitment?
Proving that we are indeed the heartless Western murderers they tell their concerts they are will prove ultimately as destructive to us, as it is to them - apart from the proven historical evidence that bombing is a useless tactic - ask the Viet Cong.
You can of course take that position for yourself if you wish, the others will need to take issue individually, if they choose so to do.
//That aside, idealistic morals emanating from ignorance of the severity of the threat, or from anything else, are useless to the dead.//
You take with one hand, and give with the other - referring to my morals as 'idealistic' is equally insulting - if you don't wish to take it, then please don't dish it out - your loss of the moral high ground as a result is apparent.
As for your solution - bombing IS - aside from the fact that you will necessarily kill innocent men women and children, what do you imagine such action would do for their campaigns, and their recruitment?
Proving that we are indeed the heartless Western murderers they tell their concerts they are will prove ultimately as destructive to us, as it is to them - apart from the proven historical evidence that bombing is a useless tactic - ask the Viet Cong.
andy-hughes, // You take with one hand, and give with the other - referring to my morals as 'idealistic' is equally insulting - if you don't wish to take it, then please don't dish it out - your loss of the moral high ground as a result is apparent..//
What on earth are you talking about? Unlike you I’m not attempting to assume the moral high ground. I prefer to acknowledge reality – and the reality is that IS will never be beaten unless determined military action is utilised.
//Proving that we are indeed the heartless Western murderers they tell their concerts they are will prove ultimately as destructive to us, as it is to them//
Could you rephrase that?
As for "ask the Viet Cong" if bombing works, ask the Japanese.
What on earth are you talking about? Unlike you I’m not attempting to assume the moral high ground. I prefer to acknowledge reality – and the reality is that IS will never be beaten unless determined military action is utilised.
//Proving that we are indeed the heartless Western murderers they tell their concerts they are will prove ultimately as destructive to us, as it is to them//
Could you rephrase that?
As for "ask the Viet Cong" if bombing works, ask the Japanese.
Naomi - //Could you rephrase that?
As for "ask the Viet Cong" if bombing works, ask the Japanese. //
I appreciate, even if I don't agree with your proposed policy of bombing IS, but we are obviously talking about two different types of bombing.
The atomic bomb did indeed hasten the end of hostilities against Japan, albeit with a horrendous loss of innocent lives, and attendant infrastructure damage.
But the relentless carpet bombing and Agent Orange application did nothing to dent the resolve, and ultimate victory of the Viet Cong.
So, on that basis - do you seriously advocate the use of an atomic weapon against IS?
As for "ask the Viet Cong" if bombing works, ask the Japanese. //
I appreciate, even if I don't agree with your proposed policy of bombing IS, but we are obviously talking about two different types of bombing.
The atomic bomb did indeed hasten the end of hostilities against Japan, albeit with a horrendous loss of innocent lives, and attendant infrastructure damage.
But the relentless carpet bombing and Agent Orange application did nothing to dent the resolve, and ultimate victory of the Viet Cong.
So, on that basis - do you seriously advocate the use of an atomic weapon against IS?
Talbot - //What do you think it will take, andy?
A chat over a nice cup o' tea and a slice o' cake? //
I think you are nearer than you intend to imply!
I have always believed that a lasting solution to an ideological difference such as IS and the West can only be solved by dialogue and education - clearly sitting in our respective countries committing mutual terrorist atrocities against each other has singularly failed in other areas of conflict, why should we assume it will succeed here?
A chat over a nice cup o' tea and a slice o' cake? //
I think you are nearer than you intend to imply!
I have always believed that a lasting solution to an ideological difference such as IS and the West can only be solved by dialogue and education - clearly sitting in our respective countries committing mutual terrorist atrocities against each other has singularly failed in other areas of conflict, why should we assume it will succeed here?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
