For this to even be considered a parallel scenario, I think it's worth exploring whether or not the fighter pilots, or mission commander, knew beforehand if there was a child in the house. And even then, I'd be willing to say that this child's blood is essentially on Zarqawi's hands, as he should know full well he's being targeted for extermination. First things first, though, if there's a good chance he could kill me, or somebody close to me, then, yeah, that kid's probably dead. Wouldn't a pregnant mother who points a gun at a cop be killed? On a related note, I'd like to know what a cop or soldier (in a free civil society with a well-regulated police force) would be permitted/expected to do, in the context of regulations and procedure. Self-interest and rule of law, that's all I need.
I can answer that. The fighter pilots weren't even told who they were targetting just that it was a high value target. Its doubtful they were even told there was anyone else with that target. My guess is if they knew who they were targetting and who else was there they probably would've gone ahead with it. This is why I set up the question in this way. From the view of a video scope the 'target' is just that a target and from our standpoint its even more remote. In war civillians get killed all the time from bombings, land mines and etc but US soldiers on the ground aren't supposed to indiscriminately shoot at an enemy if he is in a crowd of civillians to limit collateral damage. The difference is that the more remote someone is the easier it is to not be troubled by collateral damage. I'm just setting up a scenario where the humanity of the potential collateral damage is clear. In regard to the blood of the civillians killed with Zarqawi has being on his hands yes he should know that people are trying to kill him and therefore anyone around him is likely to be caught in the crossfire. I doubt Zarqawi cared that much about the civillians around him but leaving aside Zarqawi I've always found that argument rather troubling. The problem with that though is that argument could be extended to a whole variety of things. Palestinian suicide bombers claim they aren't deliberately targetting civillians since Israeli soldiers frequently mix with civillians, on buses and in stores, in uniform. From the Palestinian angle its the soldiers fault since they know they are the target of Palestinian bombers but still mingle with civillians.
regardless of where you fall on this (and frankly if i think a terrorist is hiding behind a kid and the terrorist has the potential of killing hundreds it would be hard for me to let him slip away) this logicis the exact same as the terrrorists. they kill civilians to make a point. this logic necessitates killing civilians to make a point.
Sishir, I think most people are going to be bias/hypocritical on this issue. For the most part, you will find that people would be OK with it if it's their side doing the killing, and would have no trouble at all denouncing it in the strongest terms if they are the affected party. For instance, why is the U.S. government okay with showing pictures of dead militants/insurgents/terrorists but will raise hell if, say, any news network dared to show/parade a picture of a dead American soldier? Having a double-standard is pretty much the norm, all sides are guilty of it. Generally speaking, however, world politics (which include war) are mostly amoral; Machiavellian, if you will.
I would guess the more it happens, the more people there will be that are willing to take up their cause and adopt a similar "ends justify the means" approach. If you truly believe in the "end justify the means" approach, then you can't turn around and fault anyone for employing terrorism to further their cause.
I think it's better to apprehend, though. By killing the child, you are furthering a cycle of vengence. It's quite unfortunate, but unavoidable. If you apprehend and try, the child lives and the murder is punished.
Now it says that 6 people were killed 3 men and 3 women....but no child. So, this thread becomes a moral question, not based on reality, thankfully. DD
Well, I'm addressing the original question. That's another situation entirely. In war, terrible, unspeakable things happen. I wish there had been another way to kill or capture him. Perhaps there was, but I understand why they couldn't take a chance, and send in the Special Forces team(s) that were reportedly on the scene. If they had somehow bungled it, or the madman had taken hostages, or any number of other possibilties, and he had gotten away, it would have been a huge blow. But Sishir's question wasn't about the guy that got blown up. Not the way it was worded. Keep D&D Civil.
Do you think that we knew that there was a child in the house with AZ? This is a flaw in your poll...
Don't some of you guys have the basic reading skills to understand this poll is NOT on the bombing of AZ, but a hypothetical situation?
Even though this poll isn't about AZ anyway, we DID know that we were dropping a bomb on a residential house. We elected not to send in troops that could specifically pick him off because we didn't want him to get away. So instead we fire bombed the entire joint. We were fully aware of the potential of collateral damage. So as it relates to the poll, would you kill the murderer if you were fully aware of the potential of collateral damage (the child in this case).
I think people are missing the point and politicizing this I think the original question is DOES THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS he used the Iraq thing as an example but It was not the intent to make this a referendum on the war That being said We are a shoot 1st and ask questions later If a alledged criminal has a not easily seen cylindrical thing in his hand no matter what it is. . . it there is the slightest bit of doubt what it is we are quite ok with our officers blowing the sh*t out that person If the person ends up not being a criminal .. and it was his Eye glass case in his hand OH WELL that is the price of doing business in this War on Crime That being said Why would we even think a War would be any different? we are definately a Ends Justify the Means country we need to be honest with ourselves about that one If we have to slice through have or Iraq to save american lives .. . directly or by proxy via keeping out economic interest protect then well .. that is just what we are going to do! Utilitarianism . . . . If 6 have to die .. so 6,000 can live so be it the question comes what about 600 to save 6000 . .. ? or 5000 to save 6000? Rocket River Debate the question . . not the politics
The Moral Question: Who is more immoral a Man that uses a Human Shield or the Man that shoots through a Human Shield? Rocket River
The question of who is MORE immoral isn't particularly helpful as two wrongs don't make a right. It is part of the human condition that people will ALWAYS do bad things. Since we have little to no control over other people's behavior, all we can do is control our own behavior and take responsibility for the outcome. If you shot my child in the process of killing the criminal, it would be of no consulation to me that you were less immoral than the criminal.
I get the poll, I was just saying that no child was killed. I already voted and although I hate it, I think some innocents will be killed in war.....this guy deserved to die. DD
You're exactly correct which is why I phrased it as a hypothetical situation. The Zarqawi situation was what got me thinking about this issue but I'm asking this generally as an ethical issue.
