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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (198462)	8/22/2006 11:01:51 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

So if you can find a way to claim 'self defense' it's perfectly ok to hit and kill a baby on the off chance that you might hit someone who may in the future hit you? We are not talking 'off chances' as you know very well. If one side is using civilians as body armor then no matter how carefully you take aim at the fighters, you will kill some civilians - the situation has been set up so you can't avoid it. You still have the responsibility to aim as carefully as you can, but you will kill civilians. Is it your contention that self-defense is not allowable under these circumstance?