Predator drones

[Prestwich_Blue]

Bravo Damocles. A wonderfully eloquent argument. What a shame it's utter bollox as usual. The judges would cringe at that sort of thing in a middle school debating competition.

Firstly, I never for one moment claimed that there was a price worth paying. I simply looked beyond the headline, read the source document and pointed out that the headline was hysterical.

Asking me, like Abraham, to murder my own child in the pursuit of world peace is completely nonsensical and I've no intention of justifying it with an answer. But I'll ask you a slightly less nonsensical question. Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

It must be lovely to live in the comfy little world of moral certainties that you and Josh Blue appear to live in. Sadly the real world isn't like that and there are numerous shades of grey.

I also work in IT and work on large scale system implementations. When we test those they produce defects but we have to take a view about whether we can implement with hose defects because, if we waited until we'd eliminated every single one, we'd never implement the system. Or to put the question in human terms, in 2011 nearly 2,000 people were killed in road accidents. Some of those will have been the primary cause of their own deaths but the majority were presumably innocent. Should we therefore stop people driving because there is a very real risk that innocent people will die?

Or in WWII we bombed targets of strategic and tactical importance in Germany and occupied Europe. Civilians died as a result of these raids so, in your little morally certain world, should we not ave done that?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

It is perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about whether collateral damage of 10 civilians to 40 combatants is worth it but for the majority of this thread the America hating contingent have taken this original statement as fact and have based their arguments on it without having read the real source of the information.

You think it's legitimate to advocate the death of innocent people in the hope that somehow some greater good can be achieved?

I don't care if you can catch all the Muslims in the world with one bomb, if there's one child amongst them I'm not wanting him/her killed. Insane as that may sound.

The belief that killing innocent people in order to kill the bad people is exactly the mentality that leads people to fly planes into buildings and bomb marathons. So what if some children die so long as they get to kill the baddies too right?

I don't care what colour a child is or what religion it's been born into out, I'm not into killing it. If that makes me anti American, left wing, gay or whatever then so be it.<br /><br />-- Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:12 am --<br /><br />

Or in WWII we bombed targets of strategic and tactical importance in Germany and occupied Europe. Civilians died as a result of these raids so, in your little morally certain world, should we not ave done that?

No.

I do enjoy the idea you think you can choose who gets to live or die though, it's pretty funny though, your own little God delusion.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

So, to stop innocent people being killed we have to kill innocent people? Lovely stuff.

 

[Josh Blue]

Bravo Damocles. A wonderfully eloquent argument. What a shame it's utter bollox as usual. The judges would cringe at that sort of thing in a middle school debating competition.

Firstly, I never for one moment claimed that there was a price worth paying. I simply looked beyond the headline, read the source document and pointed out that the headline was hysterical.

Asking me, like Abraham, to murder my own child in the pursuit of world peace is completely nonsensical and I've no intention of justifying it with an answer. But I'll ask you a slightly less nonsensical question. Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

It must be lovely to live in the comfy little world of moral certainties that you and Josh Blue appear to live in. Sadly the real world isn't like that and there are numerous shades of grey.

I also work in IT and work on large scale system implementations. When we test those they produce defects but we have to take a view about whether we can implement with hose defects because, if we waited until we'd eliminated every single one, we'd never implement the system. Or to put the question in human terms, in 2011 nearly 2,000 people were killed in road accidents. Some of those will have been the primary cause of their own deaths but the majority were presumably innocent. Should we therefore stop people driving because there is a very real risk that innocent people will die?

Or in WWII we bombed targets of strategic and tactical importance in Germany and occupied Europe. Civilians died as a result of these raids so, in your little morally certain world, should we not ave done that?

haha don't talk to me about the real world! The REAL WORLD?

 

[west didsblue]

It is perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about whether collateral damage of 10 civilians to 40 combatants is worth it but for the majority of this thread the America hating contingent have taken this original statement as fact and have based their arguments on it without having read the real source of the information.

You think it's legitimate to advocate the death of innocent people in the hope that somehow some greater good can be achieved?

If you read my post properly you would have seen that I said it is legitimate to have a discussion about whether 20% collateral damage was acceptable. I didn't actually say it was acceptable and I certainly didn't advocate the death of innocent people.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Bravo Damocles. A wonderfully eloquent argument. What a shame it's utter bollox as usual. The judges would cringe at that sort of thing in a middle school debating competition.

Firstly, I never for one moment claimed that there was a price worth paying. I simply looked beyond the headline, read the source document and pointed out that the headline was hysterical.

Asking me, like Abraham, to murder my own child in the pursuit of world peace is completely nonsensical and I've no intention of justifying it with an answer. But I'll ask you a slightly less nonsensical question. Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

It must be lovely to live in the comfy little world of moral certainties that you and Josh Blue appear to live in. Sadly the real world isn't like that and there are numerous shades of grey.

I also work in IT and work on large scale system implementations. When we test those they produce defects but we have to take a view about whether we can implement with hose defects because, if we waited until we'd eliminated every single one, we'd never implement the system. Or to put the question in human terms, in 2011 nearly 2,000 people were killed in road accidents. Some of those will have been the primary cause of their own deaths but the majority were presumably innocent. Should we therefore stop people driving because there is a very real risk that innocent people will die?

Or in WWII we bombed targets of strategic and tactical importance in Germany and occupied Europe. Civilians died as a result of these raids so, in your little morally certain world, should we not ave done that?

haha don't talk to me about the real world! The REAL WORLD?

OK lads, bottom line, real world, we need this asap, kill the baddies and save the goodies.

It's laughable.

Hey, that's not a mutilated baby, it's simply the means to an end. Bottom line. Real world. Asap.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

So, to stop innocent people being killed we have to kill innocent people? Lovely stuff.

So should we ban cars because they kill innocent people?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

It is perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about whether collateral damage of 10 civilians to 40 combatants is worth it but for the majority of this thread the America hating contingent have taken this original statement as fact and have based their arguments on it without having read the real source of the information.

You think it's legitimate to advocate the death of innocent people in the hope that somehow some greater good can be achieved?

If you read my post properly you would have seen that I said it is legitimate to have a discussion about whether 20% collateral damage was acceptable. I didn't actually say it was acceptable and I certainly didn't advocate the death of innocent people.

I'd personally see a discussion about whether killing children is ever legitimate as in poor taste.

20% isn't OK. 1% isn't OK. We're none of us God.

 

[Josh Blue]

It is perfectly legitimate to have a discussion about whether collateral damage of 10 civilians to 40 combatants is worth it but for the majority of this thread the America hating contingent have taken this original statement as fact and have based their arguments on it without having read the real source of the information.

You think it's legitimate to advocate the death of innocent people in the hope that somehow some greater good can be achieved?

If you read my post properly you would have seen that I said it is legitimate to have a discussion about whether 20% collateral damage was acceptable. I didn't actually say it was acceptable and I certainly didn't advocate the death of innocent people.

You disgust me calling the children, mothers and fathers that have been killed as collateral damage. They a real people, just as important as use English people. Imagine if that was happening in this country, would we call in collateral damage.

I'm sorry mate we would probably get on talking about football or the weather but I can't reason with people like you about things like this.

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

Suppose we didn't take on terrorists and an unarmed drone watched a number of known intelligence targets have a meeting in a crowded area that later you found led to a massive attack on a UK target that led to hundreds or thousands of innocent deaths, including members of your family or friends. Would the fact that we didn't act, thereby avoiding the risk of killing innocent people, make you feel better?

So, to stop innocent people being killed we have to kill innocent people? Lovely stuff.

So should we ban cars because they kill innocent people?

No. I don't want to ban cars.

I just don't want to bomb children.

Last time I checked, no one was dropping cars out of planes onto hospitals or schools.

Good comeback though...