Log in to remove this sponsored message
quote silverboner
For one, I don't think an infected family, or anyone infected for that matter constitute as "innocent". They are a direct threat to the health and well being of the surrounding population. Two its arguable under a number of philosophies that killing a few to save many is a reasonable trade off. Some would say undesirable but necessary. Some would argue its the right thing to do, some would say its wrong, but still necessary. But your intention at least with killing them is to directly save the lives of many, from a direct threat. The intention, right or wrong {edit: right or wrong is refering to the action of killing, not the intention}, is to SAVE LIVES.
That isn't even close to Osama's actions. Not even remotely close. You cannot even compare them or even attempt to argue that such a scenarios is similar to Osama's situation.
To take that analogy down further, it was not at ALL necessary to kill 3,000 civilians, men, women, and children, to "send a message". That is a coward's reasoning; that since you cannot fight your opponent directly, you kill a third party.
Take the buddhist monks who underwent self-immolation to protest against the South Vietnamese government during the Vietnam War. They did absolutely NO harm to a single soul financially or physically. But they crippled the moral support of the South Vietnamese government. If Osama were to sit in a field, call the media to him, and blow himself up in protest, that would be a strong and admirable method of getting your message across, without sacrificing innocents. But he didn't. He chose the route of massacring 3,000 civilians.
shit. Those bastards never wanted to send a message. They wanted to kill heathens. They're sick murderers and most definitely worse than the "Western Leaders" you disparage.
Al Queda is evil, and I'm glad we're removing them as a threat to the world.