Page 4 of 4
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2002 2:30 am
by Ode to a Grasshopper
If you'd sooner this wasn't posted @the mods then please feel free to delete it.
Originally posted by Ambiorix
If you don't see the difference between the rare madman who kills an abortionist and organised fundamentalist terrorism,
A minor point or two, if I may. First off, both cases are still motivated by fundamentalism. Not of the same religion, necessarily, but still by fundamentalists. Second of all, the victims of the fundamentalist attacks are still dead either way, it's no better or worse for them irrespective of which group of fundamentalists did the killing, which I believe was the point CE was making.
Apologies if I'm wrong @CE.
Posted: Sun Sep 08, 2002 5:32 am
by Dottie
Originally posted by C Elegans
In my eyes there is no difference in immorality to kill innocent civilians with a suicide bomb attack than shooting them with a gun outside their workplace.
Im not sure I agree here, Had a discussion about this with a friend a few days ago. And his pov was that to accept violence against "innocent" people (weather it is unintentional or not) you have to look at those people as intruments to achive a greater good. Now in the suicide bombers case it is obvious that he can include himself in that view, he does not escape the consequenses of the reasoning in favor of egoism. This may not be the case in other examples of violence though, like shooting people outside clinics, bombing them from safe altidute.
I must say I think he have a point.