Skip to main content
news

Re:The British Secret Servi...

T.T. Arvind
Google Google
SubjectRe:The British Secret Service...[was Re: Republicanism still an offence in Eng
FromT.T. Arvind
Date2002-04-30 19:06 (2002-04-30 18:06)
Message-ID<aamiuq$35s$1@cpca7.uea.ac.uk>
Client
Newsgroupsalt.fan.tolkien
FollowsRuss
FollowupsPradera (15m)
Russ <mcresq@aol.com>did boldly declaim: <snipped; response only required to a few points>

Russ
Well, all war kills civilians, innocent or otherwise, meaning your view would essentially mean no offensive actions in a defensive was would be moral.

A war fought entirely on the battlefield would perhaps come close. A trial of arms by champion would be even better. Think of it - don't you think governments would immediately find a way to pursue policies of peaceful coexistence and co-operation if they knew that any dispute would *have* to be settled by a fight-unto-death between all the members of one government fighting all the members of another? At any rate, it's definitely better than having armies kill each other and civilians.

However, I do see a difference between a bomb preceded by an adequate warning and/or one intended to have no civilians casualties.

I would agree that an attack that is preceded by a warning which gives sufficient time to defuse the bomb and / or evacuate the area to minimise deaths is definitely less morally culpable than one which does not.

The 'Christian world' doesn't hold a official world-wide conferences attended by their foreign ministers. The Islamic world does. The Islamic world holds itself out as a bloc; the Christian world does not.

Yes. The peculiar thing is that this is a recent phenomenon, as is the globalisation of Wahhabi Islam. Not a good thing.

Cheers,

Meneldil

Google
Pradera (15m)