or was trying to kill someone else does that make it right? Bush Blair,Saddam,Osama are all guilty of killing innocent people right?
2007-01-24 04:01:41 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Bush Lied to go to war with Iraq there were no WMD's and innocent Soldiers as well as iraqis lost their lives- hired assassins is the way they could have done it and you can't tell me the US does not have or use them from time to time- the US just wanted the Oil plain and simple
2007-01-25 02:22:14 · update #1
Bring them all in for crimes against humanity.
2007-01-24 04:06:38 · answer #1 · answered by ck4829 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are deliberately confusing the issue by comparing apples to oranges in what appears to be yet another sad, lame excuse to bash President Bush. When will you people EVER learn?
There is no "good reason" for killing an innocent person. Even the inevitable "collateral damage" in warfare is not a good reason, which is acknowledged by the US in its adoption of the Rules of War.
If you kill someone who is engaged in the act of trying to kill someone else, that is called "justifiable homicide." BIG difference between that and the confusing issue you're trying to advance here.
2007-01-24 04:27:02 · answer #2 · answered by Team Chief 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, killing innocents is never right, it may just be unavoidable in certain situations. This is why targeted assassinations should come back into style. If only hired murderers could be used to take out rogue leaders instead of throwing billions into a bloated military venture..
2007-01-24 04:06:07 · answer #3 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called collateral damage. Every war in history is guilty of this. The difference between Bush/Blair and the terrorists is that we don't seek out innocent civilians like they do.
Hezballa (used to and still does) purposely puts there bases under schools so when they're attacked they can make it look like they were targetting children.
2007-01-24 04:09:11 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Info 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You seem to have a distorted way of looking at things. If you can't see the moral difference between an attack meant to kill innocent people and attacks trying to stop the killers of innocent people then no amount of argument or discussion will help.
2007-01-24 04:10:20 · answer #5 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thats why all killing is wrong . Those people who believe in God Have a commandment that says thou shalt not kill . I guess adultery or stealing for a good reason would be ok with God As well as lying and avoiding worship on the given day .Hell all the ten commandments are up for negotiation and reinterpretation .
2007-01-24 04:08:03 · answer #6 · answered by -----JAFO---- 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, killing innocent people is the nature of war.
2007-01-24 04:27:11 · answer #7 · answered by tangerine 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called collateral damage, and it happens in all wars.
The difference between good people and bad people is the intent.
Bad people target innocent civilians.
Good people target military targets and accidentlly have civilian casualties that they didn't intend.
It's the intent that matters the most.
2007-01-24 04:05:37 · answer #8 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If they are innocent, then there is no reason to kill them.
2007-01-24 04:10:17 · answer #9 · answered by Draco Paladin 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
your right,we call foreigners here who attack us terrorist,we are foreigners over seas attacking the people there,whats that make us?
2007-01-24 04:11:23 · answer #10 · answered by charlie_t101 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋