[Hannibal]

Imagine you are in the US ARMY, in afghanistan or Iraq...

You are with three of your compadres...they are raping a 13 year old girl in a ditch.

Do you take your M-16, wait for the appropriate moment and KILL all three of them or look the other way?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine you are in the US ARMY, in afghanistan or iraq....

You are with three of your compadres....they have captured a man and have disarmed him of his AK47, and upon interrogation they discover he blew up a HUM-V, killing three men inside.

Do you proceed to torture and kill this man, or take him to a POW camp?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is killing justified in either case?

This post has been edited by Hannibal: 07 February 2005 - 09:47 PM

[Slade]

I think we should make this a larger question instead of posing a rather deliberately caustic hypothetical situation. Something like...

Can human beings morally justify the murder of another human being? : If so, how, and can you talk without a bunch of silly name calling?

I am of the view that it is not moral, regardless of the circumstances, but sometimes is neccessary for survival. I could see someone wanting to get vengence on another, and murdering to do so. That could happen to me if I was pushed far enough, but at that point, I would be a blind rage machine and wouldn't care that what I was doing was wrong.

This post has been edited by Slade: 07 February 2005 - 09:58 PM

[Hannibal]

Okay, so three of your asshole friends are raping a 13 year old girl, should you proceed to kill these FUCKING BASTARDS or look the other way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three of your asshole friends catch a criminal who is responsible for running over a jogger. The cocksuckers suggest you should help them kick the shit out of him and perhaps run him over. Should you help your worthless scumbag asshole dickhead friends, or take hiim to the Police?

[barend]

the first one is hard. because it relies on circumstance... it's not easy to get away with non combat related friendly fire...

ultimatley the second they suggested raping a girl, i would make it clear that that the first one to touch her would get a bayonet in the kidneys...

second one?....
well, the guys got a choice of being tortured by soldiers on the street or being tortured by doldiers in a POW camp...
it might be best to kill the poor guy...

again, tough call... i'm the kind of person who wouldn't join the army, noing there will never be a justified war ever again...

however to answer your question, if someone smashed a bottle in a bar and came at me with it, i would snap his neck before he could say "stitch this"

i have a high sense of self preservation...

i would definately would have no quams about beating the living shit out of someone i busted raping some girl if i saw it while out and about...
and if he said he was the son of some rich important person and was going to sue me... i'd DEFINATLEY make him "disapear"

does that make me a monster...?

fuck whatever. i deserve to live... girls don't deserved to get raped...
you challange those ideals... we have a problem...

out side of that... i'm a teddy bear

[J m HofMarN]

I think we'd all kill people if the situation requires it, that's not a big issue. The real question to ask thats what pissed people off in the news forum is this:

Would you enjoy it?

Because when you can enjoy the death of another human being that means you're fucked up. I was glad when Ronald Reagan died because it meant he wouldnt hurt anyone else, I thought he richly deserved to have his brain slowly eaten by alzheimers, but am I glad that he suffered? No, not really. There's a very thin line I think and the comment that it's "fun" or "a hoot" to kill other people crosses that line.

[civilian_number_two]

In the first scenario, I would kill the girl. If the men want to rape a dead girl they can go ahead. If they wouldn't agree to carry on raping the dead girl, I'd call them hypocrites and kill them all.
-----

Ha ha. No, seriously, I would order them to release her or make the situation one where they would be forced to assault me. I would put my weapon down on the road and step in to free her. A: I would be completely unarmed when they beat me in defence of their right to rape a 13-year-old girl. If they attacked my at any point, I would defend myself with non-lethal force. Or B: they would let me take her away and they would call me a faggot. I could live with that and I would write of the incident and send the letter to all of their mothers the moment I was somewhere I could send uncensored mail. I would also make sure other soldiers learned of what I had done (not about the letters), and that I had no intention of speaking to a superior officer about it. All I'd need to add is that this girl was no older than my sister, and these guys would be treated very badly by other soldiers after that, believe me.


In the second, I would take the man to the POW camp. Big deal he blew up a HUM-V; this is war. I'm sure we've blown up stuff on his side as well.


This is how I would react. However, to answer the question, killing is justified in both cases: in case A, killing to defend the girl, even if it pretty much made my own life forfeit. In scenario B, killing an enemy, armed or unarmed, is justified in war. Torture is not.

Seriously, what kinds of questions are these? And what's a guy like me doing in the army?


--------------------------------------


Round two: I would not kill my firends. I would walk in and take the girl away from them and I would walk away. Later I would tell their mothers, just like in the first story, and I would tell the police as well. If my friends attacked my at any point, I would defend myself with non-lethal force.

In scenario two, I would suggest the guy panicked after hitting the jogger, and that he probably isn't necessarily a serial killer or someone deserving to make murderers of us all and send us all to jail for ten years. I would calmly throw the shithead in my car, securely restrained, and drive him to the police. However, my priority would be to 911 some help for the jogger.

That's how I would react. However, killing is justifiable in the first case, and not in the second. The hit-and-run driver is neither an enemy nor a premeditated killer. The police will sort that one out.

[xmradiodave]

"You are with three of your compadres...they are raping a 13 year old girl in a ditch. Do you take your M-16, wait for the appropriate moment and KILL all three of them or look the other way?"

Tell the men (assuming they are under my command to cease the act) Place them under arrest and have them arraigned on charges.


"You are with three of your compadres....they have captured a man and have disarmed him of his AK47, and upon interrogation they discover he blew up a HUM-V, killing three men inside."

The man has been disarmed and detained. The situation is under control. No further action is required. Let him be interrogated through the proper channels.

Is killing justified in either case?
No

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote]

Go on now. Tell me whay my answers are wrong.

[kdogg]

You are with three of your compadres...they are raping a 13 year old girl in a ditch.

Do you take your M-16, wait for the appropriate moment and KILL all three of them or look the other way?

If the only 2 options are to kill or ignore, I would kill.

You are with three of your compadres....they have captured a man and have disarmed him of his AK47, and upon interrogation they discover he blew up a HUM-V, killing three men inside.

Do you proceed to torture and kill this man, or take him to a POW camp?

POW camp.

Is killing justified in either case?

In the 1st scenario, killing is the only way to stop the rape that is occuring. Furthermore, since the only other option is to let them go, it is also the only way to prevent possible future rapes and other atrocities. It would be a tough decision, but my opinion is that it's justified.
In the 2nd scenario, my opinion is that killing is not justified. I do not believe in "an eye for an eye", unless it will prevent further damage in the future. In this case, this man will be locked up and will no longer be a danger to society.

[Jane Sherwood]

Scenario Two: POW camp.

Scenario Three: Police.

Scenario One: KILL. With extreme prejudice.

[Hannibal]

They're just questions Leon...designed to provoke an emotional resonse...

[barend]

i would feel nothing except anoyance if someone forced me to kill.

beating the shit out of a rapist on the other hand... well, come on.. yeah, that'd be fun.

[Laughlyn]

Situation 1: Take photo on digital camera (all the GI's have them these days). Knock the rapists out with butt of M16, or die trying. Either way their going to hell.

Situation 2: Depends on the context. If there's AK47 and RPG fire coming from all directions, and the manpower required to take the prisoner away will directly endanger a greater number of others,(say, out gunned and pinned down) then sorry to be cold hearted, but unfortunately he's a casualty of war. otherwise POW camp.

Situation 3: Police, no arguement.

[xmradiodave]

I change my mind. In true facist fashion, kill everyone in every scenario proposed. Hell, why change now. In the immortal words of Johnny Storm of the "Fantastic Four" FLAME ON!

This post has been edited by xmradiodave: 08 February 2005 - 09:14 PM

[use the force]

Jm, Do you post that sorta stuff just to piss me and all the reagan fans in the world off? Don't you talk bad about one of the greatest presidents we have ever had. Well you can talk bad about him, but I think you went way to far.

[Slade]

I'd rather not try to talk politics on this thread, but Reagan's policies and presidential record make me shudder.

And I'm only a murderer on days that don't end in Y. Other times I try the non-violent (or less violent) method unless there is absolutely no other alternative.