Is ok to kill for your ideals?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
One - your question is simplistic. The answer would depend on the ideal. If your ideal is "Kill all Jews and create a master race", then no, killing is not okay. If your ideal is "Get me a 40 and some cash for crack", then no, it is not okay. If your ideal is "Liberate Europe from Nazi Rule", then yes, killing is okay.

Some people would sa ...[text shortened]... nt people. And don't even bother with the collateral damage argument. There's no comparison.

Do you mean that if another starts killing for his ideals that justifies killing yours?

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Do you mean that if another starts killing for his ideals that justifies killing yours?

The important thing is to test the technology.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
you can't equate Hitler and Bush. Last time I checked, Bush was not ordering mass exterminations of innocent people. And don't even bother with the collateral damage argument. There's no comparison.

You'll find that both the US government and the British government vetoed various medication going to Iraq.

The Iraquee negotiators, backed by the UN wanted Morphine and cancer fighting drugs. The US and UK continually blocked these medicines going into Iraq. So much so that top UN officials resigned over this. The result, you see, is that 500.000 more children died of cancer between 1990 and 2000, than in the decade before.

The cause of these cancers is solely due to depleted uranium, material used by the US and British forces, and not by Iraquee forces. This having taken place in the first gulf war. Obviously.

The radiation levels in Iraq are horrendous and they can tell the cancers are due to this, because of the sorts of cancers they are finding.

The continual blocking of cancer treatment to Iraq has been branded "genocidal in nature" by various institutions (including various members of the UN).

So, maybe you're right that Bush himself can't be equated to Hitler, but the US and British regimes can.

For the facts, figures and statistics of my observation, read: John Pilger's: The new rulers of the world.
All his facts, figures and resources are indexed and the majority of them are official US, UK and UN documents.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
How can that be? I am a very happy person but I dont think im pissing people off all the time.

Some people will hate you just because you are happy, and they are not 😉.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
Do you mean that if another starts killing for his ideals that justifies killing yours?

EDIT: Do you mean that if another starts killing for his ideals that justifies killing FOR yours?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I wasn't aware of this. That does not make me proud of my country.

Your not much of a debater, are you.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
If a man shoots another dead. Is the gun the murderer or the man?
I would say the man.

Well for sure the gun can't do it by itself but a man can do it by
himself, choking, etc. So definitely the man. Could be a slingshot too.

Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
...but I dont think im pissing people off all the time.

You are. Please kill Bossy for my ideals - unless she's a Guernsey, their milk makes great chocolate.

Regarding Bush & Hitler: Hitler launched V2 rockets against England from the Royal Dutch Shell tower. Even back then, Big Oil knew how to play both sides against the bottom line. As did I.G.Farben, the steel manufacturer. In the event the Axis had won the war, most of our loyal major industrial entities would have been just as well-placed to continue to profit.

There are times when it seems these petty dictators, demagogues and dark horse political leaders get far too much credit for simply being puppets dancing to the tune of their profiting industrial masters.

Originally posted by STANG
It's not OK to kill for your ideals, nor to do lesser things for your ideals.

People have a right to freedom.

And violence leads to violence.

Why do people have a right to freedom? Who gave it to them?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do people have a right to freedom? Who gave it to them?
Kelly

Freedom cannot be given. It can only be removed.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Freedom cannot be given. It can only be removed.

And being killed is such an irrefutable method for removing it. Try arguing with that...

Originally posted by shavixmir
Freedom cannot be given. It can only be removed.

And once removed it cannot be restored?

Originally posted by xs
And once removed it cannot be restored?

The conditions contributing to the lack of freedom can be modified, even removed, but you can't turn back the clock. Freedom may be achieved again, but it will be different. Anyway, freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose 😞