Beslan school siege inspires Sri Lankan Defense Secretary

[Slargos]

Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?

My god, you've finally been infected with Euroweenie.

Hardly. I just find the double-standard irritating.

For all I care, they can wipe out the entire population of the island.

All the recycling of plastic bottles in the world wouldn't dent the reduction in CO2 emissions we could achieve by simply exterminating all those little smelly brown people.

[Slargos]

Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?

What are you talking about?

We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".

Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! 

[Valmy]

We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".

Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! 

Earth to Slargos: we were just as pissed when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and hardly any of those people were civilians.  We tend to fight back when attacked.  I don't really see how that is relevent at all in any possible concievable sense to what I am saying.

[Berkut]

Then why the belly-aching when your enemies ram an Improvised Explosive Device into a building full of collateral?

What are you talking about?

We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".

Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! 

What are you talking about?

[Slargos]

We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".

Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! 

Earth to Slargos: we were just as pissed when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and hardly any of those people were civilians.  We tend to fight back when attacked.  I don't really see how that is relevent at all in any possible concievable sense to what I am saying.

You're saying that it's ok to "sacrifice civilians" in order to further your goals.

By that token, the 2001 attacks were perfectly justified.

[Berkut]

We've endured nearly a decade of weeping and moaning over 3000 people killed in the collapse of two buildings. In the duration, you guys have managed to kill many times that number yourselves, but now it's in the interest of "peacekeeping".

Firebombing for Peace! Wooo! 

Earth to Slargos: we were just as pissed when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and hardly any of those people were civilians.  We tend to fight back when attacked.  I don't really see how that is relevent at all in any possible concievable sense to what I am saying.

You're saying that it's ok to "sacrifice civilians" in order to further your goals.

By that token, the 2001 attacks were perfectly justified.

No, I don't think that is what he, or anyone else is saying.

[Maximus]

Those poor Al-Qaeda peacekeepers, pushed to extreme measures in their quest for peace. 

[Slargos]

I think destroying the Tigers is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians.  It will, in the long run, save far more lives then may have to be sacrificed in the short term.

I am pretty disgusted with the idea of lengthening the civil war in Sri Lanka for humanitarian reasons.  What sort of fucked up logic is that?

I'm going to quote his post again, since at least Berkut seems to have missed it.

[Slargos]

Again, I'm definitely not disagreeing with the statement.

I simply find it hilarious that anyone who can make this argument can also attempt to claim the moral high ground in ANY discussion about the value of human life if they can decide arbitrarily when the "incidental" destruction of the same is acceptable in reaching for a goal.

[Valmy]

I'm going to quote his post again, since at least Berkut seems to have missed it.

So it is far better to keep the Tigers around to lengthen this long and brutal civil war?

I don't really see how that means 'kill civilians to further your goals'

Rather if you have to kill civilians to end a war you might have to go ahead and do it.

[Berkut]

Again, I'm definitely not disagreeing with the statement.

I simply find it hilarious that anyone who can make this argument can also attempt to claim the moral high ground in ANY discussion about the value of human life if they can decide arbitrarily when the "incidental" destruction of the same is acceptable in reaching for a goal.

That might be a good point if in fact the valuation was actually arbitrary.

But then, it is not, Mr. Moral Equivalence.

[Slargos]

IE Where exactly lies the difference in these two sentences?

"I think destroying the Tigers is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians.  It will, in the long run, save far more lives then may have to be sacrificed in the short term."

"I think destroying the Jews is well worth the sacrifice of some civilians. It will, in the long run, save far more lives then [sic] may have to be sacrificed in the short term."

[/s]

[Valmy]

Again, I'm definitely not disagreeing with the statement.

I simply find it hilarious that anyone who can make this argument can also attempt to claim the moral high ground in ANY discussion about the value of human life if they can decide arbitrarily when the "incidental" destruction of the same is acceptable in reaching for a goal.

I think fewer people dying is better than lots of people dying.  That means I can never take the moral high ground?

[Berkut]

If you cannot see the difference between those two statements, I am quite certain there is nothing I can say that might help you.

[Slargos]

Again, I'm definitely not disagreeing with the statement.

I simply find it hilarious that anyone who can make this argument can also attempt to claim the moral high ground in ANY discussion about the value of human life if they can decide arbitrarily when the "incidental" destruction of the same is acceptable in reaching for a goal.

I think fewer people dying is better than lots of people dying.  That means I can never take the moral high ground?

What about those particular people who get killed to achieve your goal? They have no say in the matter? You don't suppose they want to live?