 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
Sure we tolerate our adventures overseas, but when the game comes to us, all of a sudden its an outrage and unnacceptable. to who though?
Thats not to say we shouldnt act and not intervene, quite the oppisite, when we have a chance to defend ourselves from real threats, we should. We should go after terrorists with the same resolve as we go against conventional armies. We have to put our foot down somewhere, but crying foul over terrorism isnt going to stop it.
think about violence relativism...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:27
|
|
Such people...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:27
|
|
MRT, you can stow that where the sun doesn't shine pal.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
only if you move your head for a moment.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
the problem is you cant regulate the actions of others. you can only react, and for israel that means reacting to terrorism with conventional means. for palestine that means reacting with terrorism to conventional means.
if you cant win the fight their way, fight any way you know how, or die trying.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999 time: 05:27
|
|
"You can only react"
Erm, Iraq.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
youre right lancer...we had no provocation and were the aggressor...and we were wrong. conventional terrorists.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Americans terrorise so they terrorise them back.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
doesnt shock me, just makes me wonder why people view the two differently?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:27
|
|
i see a difference in inent, but the problem is civilians still die in military operations. in the end though, that doesnt matter to the victim who is after all the person we should try to help...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu
The law says you can defend ourself, and whatever you do in self defense is OK. |
Yes, as long it is really in self defense. To continue your example: The armed man attacks, I defend myself (no problem). Somehow I manage to get my hands on the guyīs weapon (fine) so heīs not a danger anymore (even better). All this would be justified, it would be even justified when I injure him, or kill him, as long as it is in direct defense.
It would however not be justified if I then, after I seized his weapon and took control of him, when therefore the direct threat for me is gone, take the weapon I got from him and say "Hey, you attacked me! So it is ok to kill you now! Prepare to die!"
*Kills the man*
That would make me a murderer, and every court in Germany would decide accordingly.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
BebRo but in Germany there exists the rule of law. So youknow that the one who did you harm has good chancesof being sent to prison and be punished.
In theinternational arena int. laws are seldom obeyed which means that people take the law (as they see it) in their own hands.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
now of course their practice is to be contemned as of course is the practcies of "organized or state" terrorism against other countries or peoples.
there's no way around it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu
Bebro, exactly. To quote from my earlier post:
The victim of an aggressor is always right, regardless what means of fighting he employs, as long as the aggressor hasn't capitulated.
What you describe is the last part - when the aggressor can't harm you anymore you are obliged to treat him well. |
But capitulation implies that you are always right as long as you didnīt get what you want politically, which is not exactly the same as being under direct threat for your life (which is the most important point to fall under the self-defense rule).
To go back to our example, letīs say I simply escape him the first time, then meet the same guy again, and say: "Hey yesterday you attacked me and got away with it, so today I kill your wife and children in pure self-defense!"
In this case, he hasnīt "capitulated", he may even still be a kind of threat, but my killing of his wife and children is by no means an act of self-defense.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|