Maybe if you explained how it was hypocritical.

A cynical and condecending post does not make anyone want to consider your point of view. Who would want to be as hostile as you seem to be?

All you seem to be saying is that yes it's wrong but it happens. That's a sad point of view. Here's why: It is wrong to kill them. Once you acept that it is wrong to kill civilians you are morally committed to not engage in actions that reasonably will result in the killing of civilians. If it is wrong to kill them then it cannot be pushed aside, it is a moral absolute. The correct action would be to send in ground troops or sugically strike certain points to eliminate absolutely all mistakes and to assure that no civilians are killed. You can in no way simply conceed that they will get killed do to war and therefore their deaths should not be morally considered. There is no mitigating factor to justify the killing of a non-combatant.
The answer is very simple: Yes civilians die in war, no it is not right to kill them anyway.
Indescriminantely killing civillians and assuming some of them aided the "enemy" is no justification. To kill you, assuming you had done something "wrong" does not make it morally right to kill you.
You draw a false dichotomy between doing nothing, and killing civilians as if those were the only two options avgailible. Now, that is "dense". You must understnad there are many ways to deal with being attacked. You seem smart enough to grasp that. This includes placing the blame in the right place.
The rest of your rant gets off the current topic.
The fact is that unless you don't consider murder to be morally wrong, then you cannot act in such a way as to invite the murder of civilians or accept the actions of those that do.

I -do- respect other people's opinions, but this is how I speak/type. I get angry with these hypocrites. Maybe if you saw things from MY point of view, you could understand. But I apologize for sounding harsh, that wasn't my intention.

Chill out! Your opinions are certainly welcome on this board, but no one wants to read, "get your head out of your @$$," and, "that crap you put on the screen makes no sense." I hope you can learn to get your own point across without belittling people with conflicting views. I mean, it's just a matter of a little respect and common courtesy.


Love, Jenny

Hey CommonSense, ever heard of a little thing called context clues? I mean, I answered your question, but I will say it again because some of you people's heads are too dense to think about what's being said. Anyway, morally it can be wrong, but it can be right as well. That's not the main focus, though. It's morally wrong to cheat on a test, but it still happens. It's morally wrong for people to lie on their tax returns, but it still happens. Now I know those aren't the best examples, because you can't compare them to people dying in a war, but it gets the point across. Like I said before, war = death, so yes, people are going to die. Those are called casualties. In some instances though, it isn't 100% morally wrong because the innocent "civilians" aren't all innocent. People DID aide the Taliban and were killed, yet we refer to those people as "innocent.” Hmm.. Let’s think about that. Anyway, my point is that it's wrong to kill people, but we HAD to retaliate; it was inevitable. We weren't just going to sit on our @$$es and say, "Oh, sh!t, we were just attacked.. Let’s go cower and hope that it won't happen to us again.” The people who attacked the US knew that we would go after them. These terrorists aren't stupid. It may have been morally wrong for these Afghanis to die, but if we had just left their country like it was, many more people would have died because of the Taliban than because of our casualties from bombings. You all have to look at both sides of the coin. Terrorist groups like al Qaeda run by Osama bin Laden only want to hurt people. The United States wants to help people. How can you compare those two things together? Personally, I believe it's morally wrong for you all to claim to love your country and support the US, when you're defending Osama bin Laden and his followers. In perspective, that's ultimately what you're doing. If you Americans don't like the way the country is run, get the hell out. Go live somewhere in the Middle East and then complain about what's morally wrong and what isn't. Maybe then you'll realize that we don't live in some perfect, secure world.

You didn't answer the question.
Is it morally right to kill a civilian non-combatant?

Alright, I just want to point out that some of you have no idea what you're talking about The only people who really have a point are the ones that can justify their reasons for doing things. Someone mentioned how innocent civilians in Afghanistan died because the United States was bombing their homes. That's true, and in everywar there are going to be casualties. Now, I'm saying that's a good thing, but people, use your brains. Unless you all are hippies and automatically assume that non one is going to die in war, then there's something wrong with that. War = death, it's as simple as that. Also, some of you are overlooking how much we have helped Afghanistan. During the harsh parts of the war, guess who dropped packaged food from planes to help the Afghanis? The UNITED STATES. Guess who gave women freedom from the male dominance (which was Now, here's a trick question: Guesslegalunder their "government")? Now here's a trick question: Who went into Afganistan and reformed their government? THE UNITED STATES. Wow! Maybe some of you learned something. What I'm ultimately saying is that the United States has done more good than harm. And yes, 9/11 was an intentional slaughtering. The World Trade Center and Pentagon were planned targets(not to mention other destinations that were avoided because of heroes on that plane who overrode the terrorists), but the war goes along as it proceeds. We aren't intentionally killing civilians like you all portray. Some of you need to get your head out of your @$$ and look at the big picture. Bush is doing a good job leading this war, and there isn't a question about forgiving him; he has only done good for this country. He -does- run the army, and he's the head of government, but he doesn't make decisions all by himself. He isn't a dictator. We have congress, and army officials who are in charge of a lot of the things they do in other countries. You all don't give Bush enough credit. He -is- helping the United States, but some of your heads are too far up your ****ed @sses to see that. Have a great daym and don't forget to smile! Hehe Oh yah, some of you guys really need to learn how to spell, because that crap you put on the screen makes no sense. At LEAST type slower - just a helpful tip

StDolphin85: First of all, I didn't mean to be so offensive. (I retract the "geez" statement.)

I never said, nor meant to imply, that civilians "over there" are any more special than those in the US.

I'm a strong believer that killing should only be used as an absolute last resort. I understand that this poses a fundamental difference in opinion between myself and most others in this forum, so I don't expect to persuade everyone to my way of thinking. Even if going into war, the US could have taken certain precautions to protect civilians. For instance, we could have simply followed the UN Charter (which we've signed onto), which specifically forbids use of weapons that have a high chance of harming people who aren't targeted, as bombs do. We could have staged evacuations of cities before we attacked them. Of course, if we weren't guilty of so many war crimes, we might have ratified the World Court, and then that would be an option too.

I actually think modifying our way of life here in A-M-E-R-I-C-A would be a good move for world peace and national defense. The way we enjoy ridiculous luxuries here can only be described as gluttonous, and people all over the world suffer because of it.

bizpa: While I don't really understand why you find me to be so ignorant, I agree with you. I've already gone out of my way to study historical US foreign affairs, I definitely want to learn more.

marine16: I don't really agree with you, but I understand your point and find it nice 'n rational. I also think that it's really important that people in the position to do so makes sure that "collateral damage" is minimized -- and I don't see the US doing that.


Love, Jenny

"Civilians die in war. True.
Does that make it morally right to kill them?"

Well, if I am going to shot someone in self defence and right before I pull the trigger they grab an innocent person and shield themselvs with them and they end up dieng. There is nothing moraley wrong with killing that person. It is not a good thing, but it is not moraley wrong. Civilians in war are the same way.

some people might that they can forgive bin laden. i dont think i can. yes he did kill 3000 in less than a day. some people might that worse things have happened and more people have been killed. what if you lost a loved one on 9/11. would u be able to forgive bin laden? i think not. he killed so many people out of hatred. there is too much hatred in this world. if we just let him go, wouldnt we be promoting violence and hatred. think about the future generations .. your children. would you want them to live in a world of violence and hatred. cities would be so violence that it wouldnt be safe to walk to school. the world is a dangerous place.

in every war..... cicilians are going to die its called collateral damage if you are going to get this critical fwegan..... you have studying to do because you might as well start on WWII and vietnam

Civilians die in war. True.
Does that make it morally right to kill them?

Please name a few of the alternatives to war you are talking about. Should we have thrown our hands up in the air, and said "Oh those poor misguided killers! They just don't know any better, and I'm sure they didn't MEAN to kill all those innocent people!" Should we have curled up into a tiny ball, and begged bin Laden to please don't hurt us anymore? Perhaps we should have publically denounced our way of life, and willingly given up our freedom? This is A-m-e-r-i-c-a, remember?

The New York people on 9/11/01 were also civillians, but they never had a clue that bin Laden was declaring war on them, did they? These were people who woke up that morning, ate breakfast, got dressed, kissed their families goodbye -- and then died. What makes the civillians over there more special? At least they KNOW they're at war; those poor New Yorkers never had a chance!

Now, to paraphrase something you said in your last post......SHEESH!!

Secondly, I have some responses/questions:

bizpa: Yes, the President is the top guy in all military branches, including the army. Also, I don't understand how the orders on exactly where to bomb makes a difference. Clearly, Bush was and is pleased as peach about the way the War on Terrorism's going, so I hold him responsible. (That isn't to say that I'm not willing to forgive him.)

StDolphin85: Of course war is hell, I think we can all recognize that. And weren't the 9/11 attacks taken as an act of war? I think 3,000+ innocent dead people is horrible, whether it was in retaliation and considered collaterol damage, or whether it was the manifest function of an attack. Also, there are many, many things that Bush and the US government could have done other than waging war and killing thousands of civialians. Geez.


Love, Jenny

If a rapists apologized would we let him go free? If ted bundy apologized would we put him off death row? No. last time I checked, these people are not as worse as Bin Laden.

War is he11 -- and you have to expect civillians to be hurt or killed during war time. Look at the world wars -- London was bombed several times, and innocent citizens died, as well as at Pearl Harbor. Bin Laden started this war by attacking the United States, and he deserves what he get's. President Bush has done the only thing he COULD do under the circumstances -- there's nothing to forgive him for. What would have been unforgivable to the American people, is if he'd done nothing at all -- terrorism must not be allowed to continue.

Actually he does run the army...

Georoge W. Bush does not un the army he never gave the order on WHERE to bomb

thats whoever was the general to give the oreder to bomb those SPECIFIC places

I have a question.

While no official body counts have been made by the government of Afghanistan or the US, several reputable media groups (think New York Times and BBC) have estimated that at least 3,500 civilians have been killed from the US "War on Terrorism" in Afghanistan since October 6, when the bombing began. Now, I've read that the official casualty count for 9/11 is 3,225.

Doesn't that make Bush and his supporters on par with bin Laden and his supporters? Would you forgive Bush?


Love, Jenny

Spicychipmunk may be able to forgive those pigs for killing his (or her) Dad, but I'll never be able to "forgive and forget." Although, I didn't lose anyone in the attacks, my best friend DID. Her aunt was in the Number 1 tower at the time, and was incinerated right where she sat (or stood.) The two of them were very close, and my friend has spent the last year trying to put her life back together -- yesterday was a total nightmare for her (today too, since she didn't show up at school.) I met her aunt a few times, and she was one of the nicest people I ever had the pleasure to meet (she was classy and funny, too.) She had even invited me to go visit her in New York the next time my friend went there for a visit. Two months later, she was dead. I guess in a way, I DID lose someone on that day afterall. At any rate, pig-bin-Laden and his crew of porker-cutthroats have to pay for their sins......one way or the other.

Personally, I don't believe that Osama bin Laden should be forgiven. Even if he -did- in fact apologize for the terrible acts of terrorism and slaughter that he played a part in on 9/11, he should still be punished to the fullest extent of American law. A person can't commit this incomprehensible "genocide," apologize, and expect to get a slap on the wrist. So many people died -as they died true heros- and were injured. Nothing can be said to gives those who lost their lives back. If Osama bin Laden is found, I hope he suffers ten thousand times worse than those of the people who perished. But looking at things in perspective, there is a great chance that he isn't alive, and as his followers diminish, it just makes him weaker. Those are just my opinions on this matter, though.