Next Show: ...loading...

Comments 8/27/06

August 27, 2006

This long, fascinating article in the Washington Post illustrates the problem Israel faces because it is more moral than its enemy. By failing to attack a group of terrorist murderers meeting at a single place with sufficient force in order to save the lives of Arab civilians, Israel ensured that hundreds of Israeli civilians would be murdered in the future by these evil men.
What is the correct moral choice? A group of people are meeting. Each one, if allowed to stay alive, will murder several hundred civilians each. However, there is no way to capture them and the the only way to kill them would kill a hundred civilians. Do you drop the bomb? Do you kill a hundred civilians now (including children) to save a thousand civilians later (including children)?
And would doing so persuade terrorists to no longer use children as “human shields”?
See In Israel, a Divisive Struggle Over Targeted Killing.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Eggs and hammy, Mammy September 18, 2006 10:00 am

    The second man answered the other, “Only if a breakfast-buffet is served”

  • hmmmmmm September 9, 2006 5:53 am

    Two men stand afar off from society. In the distance there are seven monumental stone structures,spelling out the word N O T H I N G. As the crowd before the stone pillars bows in unison,believing they must have been placed by higher beings,one of the 2 men turns and asks the other……”Is NOTHING sacred?”