Utter, utter, utter cunts.

[Tigger]

fucking hell The Dawktorm that's one awful fucking avatar. ugh.

anyway, yah, those religious nuts are whacked. No doubt. On the other hand, its no worse than dropping bombs on 7 year olds and murdering them that way.

This is an interesting point. Which is worse, killing many hundreds of children 'collaterally' or an individual 'execution'?

Its not comfortable to think about but for some reason the single killing at first sight seems more 'evil'. Not sure though.

So you thik we should ban motorised transport in the UK?

6 per day on average die in traffic accidents.

Yeah, but the point is that we're not driving at them on purpose. I'm not anyway. Unless they are chavs with their trousers round their arses, then they can have my Nissan.

[Ele]

From reading the article, the accusation against the Taliban was hearsay. But whoever did it was a cunt. A mad cunt in a warzone.

[colubridae]

fucking hell The Dawktorm that's one awful fucking avatar. ugh.

anyway, yah, those religious nuts are whacked. No doubt. On the other hand, its no worse than dropping bombs on 7 year olds and murdering them that way.

This is an interesting point. Which is worse, killing many hundreds of children 'collaterally' or an individual 'execution'?

Its not comfortable to think about but for some reason the single killing at first sight seems more 'evil'. Not sure though.

So you thik we should ban motorised transport in the UK?

6 per day on average die in traffic accidents.

Yeah, but the point is that we're not driving at them on purpose. I'm not anyway. Unless they are chavs with their trousers round their arses, then they can have my Nissan.

Quite so. But collateral damage is just as accidental, careless.

Every accusation raised concerning 'collateral' damage can be said of traffic accidents.

We know they will occur.
We know they are caused by careless or willful misbehaviour.
We know they are not usually deliberate.
We know that sometimes the prepertrators show no remorse.

[Tigger]

fucking hell The Dawktorm that's one awful fucking avatar. ugh.

anyway, yah, those religious nuts are whacked. No doubt. On the other hand, its no worse than dropping bombs on 7 year olds and murdering them that way.

This is an interesting point. Which is worse, killing many hundreds of children 'collaterally' or an individual 'execution'?

Its not comfortable to think about but for some reason the single killing at first sight seems more 'evil'. Not sure though.

So you thik we should ban motorised transport in the UK?

6 per day on average die in traffic accidents.

Yeah, but the point is that we're not driving at them on purpose. I'm not anyway. Unless they are chavs with their trousers round their arses, then they can have my Nissan.

Quite so. But collateral damage is just as accidental, careless.

Every accusation raised concerning 'collateral' damage can be said of traffic accidents.

We know they will occur.
We know they are caused by careless or willful misbehaviour.
We know they are not usually deliberate.
We know that sometimes the prepertrators show no remorse.

Agreed, but seeking out and lynching a child is not collateral damage.

[colubridae]

Ah. Ok my point was that there is a signficant difference between a retirbution hanging and collateral damage

One is utterly despicable, the other is a terrible accident to be avoided as much as possible.

[sandinista]

what a pile of bullshit, traffic accidents are the same as collateral damage from bombings. Yah, good fucking try.

[Robert_S]

fucking hell The Dawktorm that's one awful fucking avatar. ugh.

anyway, yah, those religious nuts are whacked. No doubt. On the other hand, its no worse than dropping bombs on 7 year olds and murdering them that way.

I agree, but only if you are actively targeting 7-year-olds with the bombs.

How so? I mean if you KNOW you will kill them, and sometimes alot of them, what's the real difference, both sets of people consider it worthwhile for the greater good, and dead is dead. Iraq Body Count (organisation reported by BBC in 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 525412.stm ) puts the current civilian count at around 100,000 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ .

I don't know how history will view the events, we are more likely to win and if past reporting of wars is much to go by cahnces are the hanging will get more telling time than the 100K (ish...) of civilians we splattered.

To murder a 7yr old is disgusting - utterly. To 'kill' thousands of children, their parents and siblings is also disgusting.

Looking into the face of a 7 year old, his family and his community and then going ahead and hanging him requires a different sort of monster than the ones who would bomb from a distance, or make a strategic decision that they would result in civilians being killed.

The kind of person who could still kill a child even when there is no abstraction is a more disturbing one.

[Azathoth]

You seem to be under the illusion that there have been 100,000 Iraqi deaths caused by western forces. Most of them are the mad bastards bombing and shooting each other.

[sandinista]

so what then? The invading army only killed what? 50,000? 10,000? I guess thats OK then? WTF?

[Coito ergo sum]

fucking hell The Dawktorm that's one awful fucking avatar. ugh.

anyway, yah, those religious nuts are whacked. No doubt. On the other hand, its no worse than dropping bombs on 7 year olds and murdering them that way.

This is an interesting point. Which is worse, killing many hundreds of children 'collaterally' or an individual 'execution'?

Its not comfortable to think about but for some reason the single killing at first sight seems more 'evil'. Not sure though.

One is premeditated, deliberate and intentional. The other is not directed to or intended to result in the killing of children. So, it's like asking which is more "evil," walking up and blowing someone's head off, or losing control of one's vehicle and crashing into a group of people.

[Coito ergo sum]

what a pile of bullshit, traffic accidents are the same as collateral damage from bombings. Yah, good fucking try.

The point is that if the question is what is more "evil," then the intent of the actor is important. Someone who intentionally murders someone is generally thought to be more evil than one who accidentally kills someone. That's why we give life sentences to premeditated murderers, and much lighter penalties to those who did not premeditate or those that did not specifically intend to kill a particular person.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Collateral damage means that you were trying to kill someone but ended up killing someone else instead. Car accidents are not deliberately fatal (except very rarely perhaps.)

[Coito ergo sum]

Collateral damage means that you were trying to kill someone but ended up killing someone else instead. Car accidents are not deliberately fatal (except very rarely perhaps.)

Very true, but the key fact in the analogy is that the actor did not intend to kill the victim.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Collateral damage means that you were trying to kill someone but ended up killing someone else instead. Car accidents are not deliberately fatal (except very rarely perhaps.)

Very true, but the key fact in the analogy is that the actor did not intend to kill the victim.

I am sure that Keanu Reeves doesn't mean to be quite that shit either - but he still is.

[floppit]

I think another difference is one of choice. Fair enough it can be argued that pedestrians don't choose to mix with cars but as a country we would have some democratic redress if we felt the costs of motoring outweighed the benefits. Nations do vote for governments that ban things because of risk - rarely without dispute but precedents are plentiful.

When a nation is invaded and 100,000s civilians killed those civilians have zero say, it is something done by one country to another. Car accidents are something nations do to themselves.

All that said I'd have more sympathy if I saw it as 'accidents' in the truest sense of the word, it's not just the risk that's predictable, it is often known that civilians WILL be killed as a result of military action - the most appalling examples being Nagasaki and Hiroshima. When driving a car or walking where cars are driven one may accept the presence of risk but we're talking not about risk, we're talking about certainty.

Personally, I accept that it is nigh on impossible to prove or disprove motive but I suspect that oil and power has a great deal to do with our presence in Iraq, other areas of the middle east are nearer having big guns and areas in Africa have done more to demonstrate the horrors of despotic tyrannies without our intervention.