Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (28759)	9/20/2001 9:31:26 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If you include the killing of innocent people in military actions and wars.. When CR asked me that question, he said organize to kill innocent people. I took that to mean that the act was designed around killing innocents or at the very least cavalier about the killing of innocents. I would call any military action that wasn't designed to minimize the killing of innocents as immoral but not all killing of innocents. Karen

To: epicure who wrote (28759)	9/20/2001 10:01:03 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

No, I only have to know whether this is true: "the majority of civilized peoples would consider organizing the deaths of innocent people amoral," and I feel certain that "organizing the deaths of innocent people" is considered immoral by the majority of civilized people. I recognize that all people who wage war accept the concept, chilling as the very words are, of some 'collateral damage.' The act under discussion was one in which the deaths of innocents were not a regrettable, and minimized, side effect of a military action. The death of innocents was the the object. Such a situation is one which "the majority of civilized peoples" would consider not 'amoral,' but 'immoral.' The terrorists presumably look at it strategically, and amorally.