If we knew Osama Bin Laden was hiding out in a village of 3,000 but there were no forces in the area, would it be okay to target him and strike the village with a missile from 100 miles away.

This is if we absolutely knew (and we were right) that he was there. Would it be okay to have that 3,000 person collateral damage to get the guy?

That depends entirely on what ripple effects would result. If it would end the Iraq war? If it would end this whole "war on terror" thing?
I'd have to say yes.
If it'd just be 3,001 more deaths and the other stuff keeps going on, I'm saying no.

Come on, don't muddy the waters with weird 'possible ramifications'. What you suggested is no firmer or better than saying 'if it means global warming would be fixed, then okay'.

Placing those kinds of bogus conditions on killing people is just the first step in rationalizing the stuff. Everyone knows killing OBL wouldn't end anything.

But all that aside, you have unequivocally joined the I am willing to execute people without trials club.

See, you seem like a reasonable guy, a likable fellow. But fascist thinking has insinuated itself so deeply in the psyche of the US public that we now often think and support clearly fascist ideas and policies without blinking. I don't support executing anyone without a trial. Hell, I don't even support executing people (we aren't the best at fair trials, either, lol) And I certainly don't support, under any circumstances, executing people I know haven't done anything just for the opportunity to execute a single person (without a trial, of course).

This kind of thinking is harmful!

Hardly. I'm talking in terms of net benefit. Is killing 3,001 people a good thing? On the surface, no. But is it still bad if it would save millions? 3,001 lives to end a war?
That's worth considering.

This net benefit thing is the slippery slope foolish people step out unto. First it's 3,000, then....

And you didn't address, the more important issue of acting as judge, jury and executioner, the real problem that spawns the other. I don't think I'm going to find any common ground with your vie on this one. But I'd love to hear what others think, as well.

Simple answer no


I do believe that the majority of the 3000 in the Village are not innocent bystanders, there's been just too much bloodshed, especially since we do have other ways of eliminating a target.

Would the War on Terror end? Hell no, Terrorism is here to stay and I firmly believe that we need to do everything possible to keep it out of the US as much as is possible. Yes we will get hit again, it's only a matter of time.

As to why it won't end? Simple, using Islamic writing it is justifiable in their eyes what they are doing, since their ultimate goal is the complete and total subjugation of the World to Islamic Law and "Rule". That leaves no room for ANY other religion just Islam. These aren't zealots, these are people that read the Koran and believe 100% of what is says to be the word of the Prophet, sound familiar?

We as a country and as free people need to keep that kind of thing out of our country, and out of as many countries as possible, since the more Islamic controlled countries there are, the more Terrorism the remainder countries will have to deal with or subjugate themselves to Islam.

I am hardly a 'judge, jury, executioner" fascist, nor am I a "foolish person".

This is probably best comparable to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagaski, in which America crippled Japan so that we would not have a protracted military struggle with them. Many people were killed, yes, but it quite likely saved many more lives in the end.

This situation is so unrealistic, but its an interesting question.

Basically, if the United States had no precise way of capturing or killing Osama then would it be justified in doing it at the expense of innocent lives?

If you put a stipulation on that saying that this was the last time we would ever be able to get him, things would change a little but I would say it is not justified if there will be other opportunities.

Even if there aren't, I don't think I could support killing innocent people (assuming they are innocent) to get him.

In the spirit of reciprocity are you in favor of other entities outside the US (countries or groups) having the same latitude you're suggesting we have, to kill large numbers of US citz if they feel they it justifies some larger goal, that we may or may not have any knowledge of?

Did you come across those articles in the press where the French special forces had tracked Bin Laden and knew where he was. They asked the US what they wanted them to do and the French got no reply. Supposedly, that's happened twice.

The US government don't really want to capture him. If they had him they would have lost the big bogeyman to scare us all with and also a lot of their power over us. The power that allows them to do things they wouldn't normally get away with but we let them because we are too scared.

Are you REALLY going to believe what the French Press says?

Who cares what they say. The question is would you kill him and the 3,000 townsfolk?

Well......... probably as much and possibly more than I would believe the American press.

...

I'd like to but I'd have to ask the Americans first. And seeing as they don't want him dead it's a bit of a hypothetical question. Even more hypothetical than you might at first imagine.

Anyway, it's hypothetical so here goes. Err....... no.

Ditto.

There are more responsible ways to address the issue of Bin Laden rather than murdering innocent civilians.

It would be ridiculous because Bin Laden is already dead IMO.

Right. In reality we're capable of sending cruise missiles through doorways and windows.

WOOT!!
matthew, I think this is the first time I've ever agreed with you. It's a good day in my eyes

With the capabilities of the coalition militaries today, it would be simple to drop a little munition right on his head and be done with no loss of innocent life.
If you really wanted to make some snake-eaters (Special Forces) happy, let them sneak into his room and take him out personally.

We can't go around using the term 'collateral damage' as we have been and brushing everything under the rug. If we plan a strike on a valid target and take out an innocent - well, that's wrong.

Ummm, of course, then there's the issue of human shields, but that's for another day.

Smart Bomb(TM) ftw.