Attackers seize Russian school II(continued)

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
man, more than 200 people dead in the operation that ended the siege .

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous

Now I'm not defending that in any way...its just pointless to say that these aren't children.

Who gives a ****? If they're an active lethal threat, kill 'em.

If they're not, deal with them in another manner.

[:) Smiley]

This is a case where a Russian 2nd Amendment would have helped the situation.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by muxec
Reeducating is almost imposible.

You act like they are actually brainwashed, like hypnotized. They have merely grown up in a different type of environment. They had different role models. They learned different values. Their ability to reason has not diminished.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Who gives a ****? If they're an active lethal threat, kill 'em.

If they're not, deal with them in another manner.

Did you just get thru playing civ or something? This is the real world. You can't just go around killing those who threaten you, especially if they're kids. Christ!

[Lefty Scaevola]

Massecre triggered by inferior tape job?

"Bombs were strung all over the gym," one teenage girl told state television. "Tape came unstuck on one and it blew up."
"There were two big explosions," a women in her forties said. "We started pushing all the children out of the windows ... Everyone who was there started pushing them out."
"Authorities said they had been forced to launch a rescue operation when the gunmen opened fire on fleeing children. "

[Verto]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Did you just get thru playing civ or something? This is the real world. You can't just go around killing those who threaten you, especially if they're kids. Christ!

If a child makes the decision to arm themselves, whether it be with a firearm, explosive, or some other weapon, they are a threat. Their age no longer matters when they try to harm others.

I saw some AP photos of the aftermath of all this and...

Regardless of Russia's politics past and present, this cannot be justified. This is an atrocity.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Who gives a ****? If they're an active lethal threat, kill 'em.

If they're not, deal with them in another manner.

Yeah, see, if you read the original post that got me into this crazy discussion, you'd see that I didn't mean to argue this in the first place. I guess I was drawn into it.

I said children grow up to add to the festering cesspool that is life; I wasn't talking about a specific group of children, but all children. All children will add, when the become adults, to the festering cesspool of life: questioning whether to bring a child into this world isn't the best course of action.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Verto
If a child makes the decision to arm themselves, whether it be with a firearm, explosive, or some other weapon, they are a threat. Their age no longer matters when they try to harm others.

Ah. So you kill them.

edit: You expanded on wht MtG said. He merely said the children have are threatening. You said they take action. In such a case you can't ethically kill them except in self-defense and in a war situation.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
He merely said the children have are threatening.

In what world does "active lethal threat" equal "have are threatening"? Not mine, I hope...

Are you saying that you'd be fine and dandy with a minor posing an active lethal threat to you by, e.g., pointing a loaded pistol at you? Or are you just trying to misrepresent the arguments of other posters?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

There is a huge difference between what MtG was saying and what muxec was saying.

MtG: Active lethal threat, ie, they're attacking you

muxec: They may become a threat, meaning they're no longer considered children, meaning it is fully right to bomb where there are children who may become a danger

[loinburger]

I'll go on the record as saying that I disagree with indiscriminately bombing children just because they might grow up to pose a threat to whatever cause is being defended at the moment, and that I also disagree with misrepresenting another poster's opinions with blatant schmuckery -- i.e., by lambasting somebody's schmuckery I do not intend to defend another's warmongery, and vice-versa.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

When I suggested that he defended that, he certainly didn't deny it

Him:

Look at Afgani children who know to handle AK47 before they can read.

And please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Morozov not good example, just to understand.

Me:

They weren't born this way, they are brought up this way. You're trying really hard to say I'm wrong when when I made my first comment there wasn't a right or a wrong and I wasn't looking for a debate.

However, I see you feel it helps your position if you never consider these people children. If they aren't children, nothing should stop you from bombing where they live.

Him:

With right education they would be, indeed.

Certainly looks like he has no problem irradicating them (as I posted at least twice, and he never backed away from that) because he doesn't consider them children.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by loinburger

In what world does "active lethal threat" equal "have are threatening"? Not mine, I hope...

Are you saying that you'd be fine and dandy with a minor posing an active lethal threat to you by, e.g., pointing a loaded pistol at you? Or are you just trying to misrepresent the arguments of other posters?

I'm not talking about pointing a gun to your head. I'm talking about carrying guns and talking about killing you. There are plenty of right wing nutcases that do that in the US and we don't kill them unless they attack us, and they aren't even children. I hope they aren't anyway.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm not talking about pointing a gun to your head.

Then are you still talking about an "active lethal threat," or are you instead talking about a "have are threatening"?