Killing children/your child because god told you to

[Dos Equis]

The difference is purposely targeting kids.  When Genocide/mass murder is committed with swords and spears, Kids are purposely targeted when it can be avoided.

Versus:

The bombing of suspected terrorist targets that resulted in the unintentional deaths of innocent children.

We draw a distinction, because it makes us sleep better at night, but there really is no difference.  No, we don't target noncombatants and we have rules of engagement, but we know that dropping a bomb on a city will kill noncombatants.  We know that war will kill kids.  At the end of the day, the kids are still dead.  And if you support a war that you know will result in dead kids, then you're effectively advocating the killing of kids.

How many kids did we kill in Japan, Vietnam, North Korea, Europe, Iraq, etc.?  Had to be thousands.     

[OzmO]

Pretty much, but mainly just the boys.  He was talking about what it would actually take to "win" the war.  He didn't say "every child there is destined to kill Americans so we better kill them first."  He specifically talked about the men who die in their fight, war, etc.   

Still who is willing to search out and target a 3 year old boy and kill him simply because of what he might do?  Regardless of who his parents are.

How can that be just?  How can that be moral?  How can that be not Evil?  How can we know?  No different than aborting a baby (not that you would) because you believe they will grow up to be a criminal/murderer in America.

[OzmO]

We draw a distinction, because it makes us sleep better at night, but there really is no difference.  No, we don't target noncombatants and we have rules of engagement, but we know that dropping a bomb on a city will kill noncombatants.  We know that war will kill kids.  At the end of the day, the kids are still dead.  And if you support a war that you know will result in dead kids, then you're effectively advocating the killing of kids.

How many kids did we kill in Japan, Vietnam, North Korean, Europe, Iraq, etc.?  Had to be thousands.     

Dropping bombs involve 1 action.  Killing soldiers on the field of battle with a sword and then proceeding to a village a killing the children involve 2 actions, 2 separate opportunities to avoid innocent death.

They are VERy different.

[Dos Equis]

Dropping bombs involve 1 action.  Killing soldiers on the field of battle with a sword and then proceeding to a village a killing the children involve 2 actions, 2 separate opportunities to avoid innocent death.

They are VERy different.

Think about it.  What is the end result of war?  Dead kids.  Dead women.  We know that going into any major conflict.  It's easy to say our intent is different, and it may be, but the end result is the same.  Justifying dead noncombatants is really just a way to ease our conscience.  War is hell.       

[OzmO]

Think about it.  What is the end result of war?  Dead kids.  Dead women.  We know that going into any major conflict.  It's easy to say our intent is different, and it may be, but the end result is the same.  Justifying dead noncombatants is really just a way to ease our conscience.  War is hell.       

Would we, today, take advantage of an option to not kill children in war?

They had that option back then.

[Deicide]

We draw a distinction, because it makes us sleep better at night, but there really is no difference.  No, we don't target noncombatants and we have rules of engagement, but we know that dropping a bomb on a city will kill noncombatants.  We know that war will kill kids.  At the end of the day, the kids are still dead.  And if you support a war that you know will result in dead kids, then you're effectively advocating the killing of kids.

How many kids did we kill in Japan, Vietnam, North Korea, Europe, Iraq, etc.?  Had to be thousands.     

We love to fight lots of unnecessary wars.

[Dos Equis]

Would we, today, take advantage of an option to not kill children in war?

They had that option back then.

Sure.  I think the goal is always to avoid killing noncombatants.  Very hard to do when the enemy hides behind skirts in residential neighborhoods. 

I really don't know what the options were thousands of years ago.  Maybe the only way to secure the safety of your family and community against an enemy was to wipe out the entire opposition, including their families.  Maybe they did what my friend said they do today:  train the boys from as young as possible to kill the enemy.  I don't know.  And honestly it really isn't relevant to anyone's life today.   

[Deicide]

Sure.  I think the goal is always to avoid killing noncombatants.  Very hard to do when the enemy hides behind skirts in residential neighborhoods. 

I really don't know what the options were thousands of years ago.  Maybe the only way to secure the safety of your family and community against an enemy was to wipe out the entire opposition, including their families.  Maybe they did what my friend said they do today:  train the boys from as young as possible to kill the enemy.  I don't know.  And honestly it really isn't relevant to anyone's life today.   

Our government's covert actions create enemies for Americans that Americans themselves had nothing to do with...I hope you are not drawing an analogy?

[Dos Equis]

Our government's covert actions create enemies for Americans that Americans themselves had nothing to do with...I hope you are not drawing an analogy?

Our government's "covert actions" did not create the generational hatred of some of our enemies.  Many in the Middle East hate us because we exist.  We could remove every boot from the ground and they would still hate us. 

[Deicide]

Our government's "covert actions" did not create the generational hatred of some of our enemies.  Many in the Middle East hate us because we exist.  We could remove every boot from the ground and they would still hate us. 

Uhmm...no.

They hate America because of what it does abroad. End of story. Do you really think people in the Middle East give a rat's ass what some guy in Boise, Idaho is doing on a Friday night?

[OzmO]

Sure.  I think the goal is always to avoid killing noncombatants.  Very hard to do when the enemy hides behind skirts in residential neighborhoods. 

I really don't know what the options were thousands of years ago.  Maybe the only way to secure the safety of your family and community against an enemy was to wipe out the entire opposition, including their families.  Maybe they did what my friend said they do today:  train the boys from as young as possible to kill the enemy.  I don't know.  And honestly it really isn't relevant to anyone's life today.   

If they wiped out all the Amalikite adults who would train them? 

Point is, children were murdered allegedly in cold blood according to God's orders.  So what?  It happened thousands of years ago.  BUt in the context of an on going dialog/debate about the Bible being the infallible word of god, it is relevant. 

[Dos Equis]

If they wiped out all the Amalikite adults who would train them? 

Point is, children were murdered allegedly in cold blood according to God's orders.  So what?  It happened thousands of years ago.  BUt in the context of an on going dialog/debate about the Bible being the infallible word of god, it is relevant. 

All those old enough to know what happened to their parents could train whomever is left.  Where would you draw the line?  Age 18, 16, 13?  You've seen kids chanting death to America haven't you? 

One of the things I've learned about our enemies in the Middle East is they are very patient.  They will wait years to strike. 

How do you characterize the death of all the children who die in war?  Do you consider that murder too?   

[Deedee]

Maybe satan does inspire you? huh? How do you know? HOW DO YOU REALY KNOW?!

Unless you prove him otherwise, he is not "off his rocker".

Eisenkopf is a much better moniker and ein herz built of stone, might be a better explanation for your views, as it does for all religious bodybuilders. 

[Deedee]

All those old enough to know what happened to their parents could train whomever is left.  Where would you draw the line?  Age 18, 16, 13?  You've seen kids chanting death to America haven't you? 

One of the things I've learned about our enemies in the Middle East is they are very patient.  They will wait years to strike. 

How do you characterize the death of all the children who die in war?  Do you consider that murder too?   

Yes dumbass, I could've been a Dresden never-been-born child who would've never burnt to a crisp in some basement in her never -been-born mother's stomach who would've never been born from her mother. Thankfully, not all Americans are like you. Someone, unlike you, saved my grandmother's ass.

[OzmO]

All those old enough to know what happened to their parents could train whomever is left.  Where would you draw the line?  Age 18, 16, 13?  You've seen kids chanting death to America haven't you? 

One of the things I've learned about our enemies in the Middle East is they are very patient.  They will wait years to strike. 

How do you characterize the death of all the children who die in war?  Do you consider that murder too?   

Are you suggesting we should kill those who are chanting death to America?  I don't think you are.

It doesn't matter either way, its still wrong to kill someone for what they might grow up and do. 

As far as death to children who die from war.  If its deliberate, it's murder.  If a soldier is walking down a street and sees a child of his enemy and shoots the child it's murder.   If a plane drops a bomb on a weapons munition dump and a child gets killed it's collateral damage.

It's a very distinct difference with the same end result.  The difference is intention and availability.

[Government_Controlled]

As far as death to children who die from war.  If its deliberate, it's murder.  If a soldier is walking down a street and sees a child of his enemy and shoots the child it's murder.   If a plane drops a bomb on a weapons munition dump and a child gets killed it's collateral damage.

It's a very distinct difference with the same end result.  The difference is intention and availability.

I've been meaning to ask you something OzmO. Hypothetically speaking, If God WERE to take a child's life, would you question His decision? Just asking?   



GC/DEA_AGENT

[OzmO]

I've been meaning to ask you something OzmO. Hypothetically speaking, If God WERE to take a child's life, would you question His decision? Just asking?   



GC/DEA_AGENT

Depends on how.  If a child life was taken in a natural disaster one could argue that "god" took the child's life, because God created the physical world in which disasters happen.  In that case I would not question it.

However, if God ordered a father to kill his child, I question that.  If God orders a Army to kill children I question that.

My assertion is, God doesn't order such things, man does, and in the Bible man ordered it and said God did.

[Dos Equis]

Yes dumbass, I could've been a Dresden never-been-born child who would've never burnt to a crisp in some basement in her never -been-born mother's stomach who would've never been born from her mother. Thankfully, not all Americans are like you. Someone, unlike you, saved my grandmother's ass.

I would ask what the heck you're babbling about, but I really don't care.   

[Dos Equis]

Are you suggesting we should kill those who are chanting death to America?  I don't think you are.

It doesn't matter either way, its still wrong to kill someone for what they might grow up and do. 

As far as death to children who die from war.  If its deliberate, it's murder.  If a soldier is walking down a street and sees a child of his enemy and shoots the child it's murder.   If a plane drops a bomb on a weapons munition dump and a child gets killed it's collateral damage.

It's a very distinct difference with the same end result.  The difference is intention and availability.

No I'm not.  I'm illustrating that some of our enemies breed their children to hate us.  We've both seen it. 

But where would you draw the line when dealing with an enemy that trains their kids to engage in irrational acts of violence? 

We effectively deliberately kill women and children in war all time because we know they will die when we engage in combat operations in or around residential areas. 

I really don't see an intellectually honest distinction.  Pointing a gun at a child of the enemy and pulling the trigger and dropping a bomb on the child's neighborhood designed to kill the child's parent still results in a dead child.   

This reminds me of the discussions I've had regarding assisted suicide versus prescribing medication that will hasten a person's death.  I had a lengthy disagreement with a doctor who is vehemently opposed to assisted suicide, but has no problem with prescribing medication to alleviate suffering, when the required dose results in death.  He said the same thing you're saying:  the difference is intent.  I really view it as sort of a meaningless distinction.  In both instances the patient dies and in both instances the doctor knows his actions will cause the patient's death.  One method just allows the doctor to sleep better (and avoid losing his license, etc.).     

[OzmO]

No I'm not.  I'm illustrating that some of our enemies breed their children to hate us.  We've both seen it. 

But where would you draw the line when dealing with an enemy that trains their kids to engage in irrational acts of violence? 

We effectively deliberately kill women and children in war all time because we know they will die when we engage in combat operations in or around residential areas. 

I really don't see an intellectually honest distinction.  Pointing a gun at a child of the enemy and pulling the trigger and dropping a bomb on the child's neighborhood designed to kill the child's parent still results in a dead child.   

This reminds me of the discussions I've had regarding assisted suicide versus prescribing medication that will hasten a person's death.  I had a lengthy disagreement with a doctor who is vehemently opposed to assisted suicide, but has no problem with prescribing medication to alleviate suffering, when the required dose results in death.  He said the same thing you're saying:  the difference is intent.  I really view it as sort of a meaningless distinction.  In both instances the patient dies and in both instances the doctor knows his actions will cause the patient's death.  One method just allows the doctor to sleep better (and avoid losing his license, etc.).     

I see it as intellectually dishonest without the distinction.  On one hand you are purposely deliberately killing a child.  It's something the person doing can chose to do or not to do in a separate action from the attempt to killing the enemy parent where as dropping a bomb on a enemy fort that results in the unintentional death of children is completely different because the option or the choice was not there.

[Dos Equis]

I see it as intellectually dishonest without the distinction.  On one hand you are purposely deliberately killing a child.  It's something the person doing can chose to do or not to do in a separate action from the attempt to killing the enemy parent where as dropping a bomb on a enemy fort that results in the unintentional death of children is completely different because the option or the choice was not there.

It's not unintentional if you know dropping the bomb will cause the child's death. 

[OzmO]

It's not unintentional if you know dropping the bomb will cause the child's death. 

But avoidable if in a separate action a child is murdered with a sword.

I'm not justifying the death of a child due to collateral damage.  But the intent is to kill the enemy not the child. 

Killing a child after the fact is cold blooded murder.

[Dos Equis]

But avoidable if in a separate action a child is murdered with a sword.

I'm not justifying the death of a child due to collateral damage.  But the intent is to kill the enemy not the child. 

Killing a child after the fact is cold blooded murder.

We're kinda going in circles, but the knowledge (i.e., the act will cause a child's death) before committing each act is the same and the end result is the same.  Really a distinction without a difference.     

[OzmO]

We're kinda going in circles, but the knowledge (i.e., the act will cause a child's death) before committing each act is the same and the end result is the same.  Really a distinction without a difference.     

There's a difference.  HUGE one.

In the second action one can chose not to pull the trigger and kill the child.   The enemy is already dead why chose to kill the child?

[Dos Equis]

There's a difference.  HUGE one.

In the second action one can chose not to pull the trigger and kill the child.   The enemy is already dead why chose to kill the child?

We could also choose not to drop the bomb that we know will kill the child.

Is the enemy dead if he has offspring who will be trained to kill you?  At what age would you draw the line?