| Author |
Message |
    
Harry Simenon
Awareness Member
Post Number:
15
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 05:00 pm: |   |
Imagine the following situation.
A terrorist is planning to drive a truck with explosives into an office building. Hundred innocent people will be killed. You are outside near the truck. It is impossible to warn anybody. You happen to carry a gun. The terrorist takes two innocent bystanders, and uses them as a shield to get to the truck. The only way you can stop him, is by shooting the two innocent people as well.
What will you do?
|
C. E. Winterland
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1182
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 06:34 pm: | |
Pull the trigger, provided your aim is accurate.
That's my first instinct on reading your post. There is a chance you could miss or avoid killing the bystanders and take the terrorist down.
I might also try to get to the truck first... Our terrorist would have to lose his shields to rouste me out, and if I had not revealed my weapon yet, then there would be a clear shot, point-blank range.
Someone familiar with martial arts might do all kinds of things to impede the terrorist without killing the bystanders outright. If you ask me, anyone trying to hold 2 unwilling victims before him is tasked to capacity just keeping them there - it would be fairly easy to bowl over the lot with a half-assed tackle or well placed kick or two.
Hmmm... If I have a gun, and am between the terrorist and the truck... why am I not shooting out the tires to start as well?
A couple of rounds into the engine compartment could do wonders to keep it from moving as well - unless of course, it is already in-place.
CEW
PS - this decision gets much more difficult if I know either or both of the bystanders, yes?
(Message edited by cewinterland on October 11, 2003) |
pacwriter
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
954
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 06:48 pm: | |
If you are not a cop, you do nothing. If you shoot and kill anyone, you go to jail no matter how things turn out. You can bet the ACLU will make sure you violated somebody's rights. And, if you are white and they are any race other than white, you get the chair.
Right Fred??
http://www.pacwriter.netfirms.com/ |
pacwriter
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
955
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 06:49 pm: | |
Oh, is the person with the gun democrat or republican? It will make a difference.
http://www.pacwriter.netfirms.com/ |
Claudia Turner VanLydegraf
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
659
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 06:53 pm: | |
First off, How would a person hold two people without that person having any kind of opening that another person could shoot through? He would have to have them straight line in front of himself, to be effectively blocking any kind of ambush, or side by side, and in either case, they (the hostages) could and should move, especially if they can see that someone is trying to stop the situation. If they moved far enough apart, if they were side by side, then you could shoot through the middle of them and dead on into the guts of the terrorist. If they were single-file in front of that terrorist, then you might drop to the side and shoot for the back of the person closest to the terrorist, and thus shoot dead into the heart or brain of that terrorist. If the hostages were thinking about getting away, and found an opening, I am sure that they would make a break if they saw a possibility, and thus, the terrorist would have his attention diverted long enough to allow you to close the gap and get a good shot. Creating a diversion would help, and keeping confusion going, might give the hostages an opening to break free, also.
Or as CE stated, you could make the truck immovable by shooting out the tires, or go for it instead of the terrorist initially, and force him to let the hostages go in his effort of getting the truck away from you. You could stop him from getting the truck any closer to his target by forcing him to get to it first in an offenive move, and he would also lose his hostages at that time, problem solved, and he doesn't have anyone to protect him.
Just my two centavos worth......
Nice to see you Harrie.
Claudia |
Gloria Marlow
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
445
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 08:30 pm: | |
First off, I'd fire a few shots into the air...that's bound to call some attention to me and more than a few police...
If I'm nearer the truck than he is, he would simply have to go through me to get to it. Does he have a gun? Then, he'll shoot me. Does he not have a gun? Then it would be more of a physical assault on me and the hostages would be able to get away. So, I'd die either way...that's not something I'm afraid of...living with the constant thought that if I'd tried I might have saved hundreds or thousands, or simply the two hostages, but I was too concerned for myself to try....that's something I wouldn't want to do...
Although, I would think his taking hostages would cause a little bit of commotion, so maybe people around would call for help...
I have a firm belief in the decency of the majority of people and have to think in a crowd that would be around a building that size, I wouldn't be the only one trying to help...so he would probably have several attacks on him or blockages to his plan... |
Fred Dungan
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
346
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2003 - 09:38 pm: | |
Never miss a chance to hone your skills. If you can't place a bullet in the terrorist without shooting the hostages, you shouldn't be carrying a gun.
http://www.fdungan.com/freedom.htm |
Harry Simenon
Awareness Member
Post Number:
16
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 02:10 am: | |
Unfortunately, the truck’s engine is armored, the terrorist is very skilled in keeping the hostages in front of him, (say he had 5 years of training in such matters.) and this happens in the back of the building. There is no one else around. It is too far away for accurate aiming, and no time to go nearer.
You have only two options: do nothing, or kill the terrorist and the two hostages with him.
What will you do? |
Olen Armstrong
Hunger Member
Post Number:
92
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 08:56 am: | |
Fire at the terrorist's feet.
If you hit the hostages by accident, they probably won't die but won't be able to walk with him or be a shield any longer.
The terrorist is then an easier target. THEN kill him quick and kill him twice. Empty your weapon into him and keep squeezing after it's empty, in front of as many witnesses as possible. That way you can make a legal case later of having been terrified and in fear of lost innocent lives. Meaning: "Your Honor, I was terrified and just started shooting. I barely remember it all, I was so scared."
If you HIT the terrorist's feet, then he won't be able to drive. THEN kill him quick and kill him twice. (See the paragraph above. Cut and paste to your own taste.)
Alternately get in front of the vehicle. When he moves it to cause you imminent injury or death, when you're legally in fear for your life and allowed to use deadly force, fire at him thru the windshield. (Some things are WORTH risking death over.)
But if the situation you proposed keeps changing with each new suggestion, then your premise is invalid due to lack of sufficient information. Anyway, what kind of idiot terroist has an armored vehicle at his disposal, only one guy in his way, but takes hostages? Hostages are a major pain-in-the-ass to deal with and are to be avoided if possible. Easier to just kill them than drag them along. If he's so well trained, wouldn't I be dead almost immediately? I would be the obvious first target. Of course, you can manipulate the situation to suit your premise as you please, but at some point you begin to lose credibility.
With no other options, pray...then shoot...and by God, DON'T miss.
I return now to my previously scheduled lurking.
Later,
Olen A
>Olen A<
9-11-01
Never forget....Never forgive |
Gloria Marlow
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
448
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 09:58 am: | |
I suppose I could just shoot myself and then I wouldn't have to worry about it...
Gloria
P.S.
In the movie "Speed" wasn't Keanu Reeve's theory to shoot the hostage? |
LaurieAnne
Unity Member
Post Number:
1048
Registered: 12-2001
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 10:07 am: | |
If your only choices are shooting or being shot, you have to take the stance of eliminating the shield. Shoot the hostages. Not to kill, just so that the terrorist would think twice about trying to carry an injured, bleeding hostage. And if you had already shown a willingness to shoot the hostages, he would then think twice about grabbing another hostage. (For some reason, this scenario conjures to mind Keanu Reaves in Speed...what do you do? Shoot the hostage...)
Once the hostages are down, don't hesitate to fire off a few more rounds. Nail him through the heart...through the head...hell, shoot both kneecaps so that he not only cannot get away, but also has to stand trial and stay in prison in a wheelchair (though I would much rather go for the heart or the head...proponent of capital punishment)
Of course, if this is either novel or script-writing for which the question is being asked, then by all means, shoot the hostages to get them out of the way, but not killed. Then shoot the gun out of the hand of the terrorist and engage in a series of death-defying jumps over walls and from building to building, sliding under a car or two, or over the roofs on your way through the parking garage, trap him up on the roof and engage in some wicked hand-to-hand combat.
While all of this is going on, the former hostages have been surrounded by help drawn by the echoes of the gunshots. They have drawn attention to the fact that the truck is loaded with explosives. The building is evacuated and some concerned responders have helped to carry the wounded out of the building and into a waiting ambulance--who had been parked at the cafe across from the building for their break. The ambulance speeds off to the hospital (who cares about the law asking questions when it's fiction, right?) People are running and scrambling from buildings all over the place, getting as far from the potential explosion as possible, since all of those evacuating the threatened building are screaming, "It's a bomb! It's a bomb! R-r-r-run for your lives!" (A bit overdramatic, I'm sure.)
Back to the situation with the terrorist--you are currently engaged in hand-to-hand combat. By the time the focus comes back, you are both beginning to weaken. One is bleeding from the lips. The other with a nice cut above the eyebrow or from the nose. Tuck, dive, dodge, swing, kick, drop, jump..... Top it off by having the terrorist out-jump a spinning kick and land on the edge of the roof. The protagonist then smiles and gives him a little shove over the edge of this 10-story parking garage. There is a sickening thug, the protag leans over the edge and spies the antag speared on top of the flag-pole, to which, the classic line is spoken: "Stick around." The antag, not killed instantly, and extremely pissed off, pulls a detonator from his pocket, smiles up at you and says, "Fuck you." Pushes the button. The ground shakes with the force of the explosion. Debris flies. You duck. One disgustingly sharp piece of metal from the building (likely part of a window frame--light, aluminum, and most likely to fly a distance, other than the window glass) propels through the air, slicing off the head of the antag. Blood drips, chaos in the streets, flames roar in the background. The end.
********
And my son says, stop imagining and the situation stops. Everyone will live.
LA
LaurieAnne
http://www.authorsinkbooks.com |
LaurieAnne
Unity Member
Post Number:
1049
Registered: 12-2001
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 10:10 am: | |
cute. I didn't read the other messages until I finished typing mine. Must be great minds think alike, eh, Gloria?
LA
LaurieAnne
http://www.authorsinkbooks.com |
Harry Simenon
Awareness Member
Post Number:
17
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 01:11 pm: | |
The point is not how you could terminate the terrorist, but if you are willing to kill innocent people to rescue other innocent people.
You have thought of every possibility, but you will have to discard all of them, (for whatever weird reason.) There is only one way to stop the terrorist: by killing the hostages.
Are you willing to do this?
PS You should write a book about that topic LaurieAnne! (And I would not like to see you being angry at me! I like my kneecaps the way they are!)
|
Gloria Marlow
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
449
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 02:34 pm: | |
There is not right answer to this. Who's to say two lives lost are better than hundreds? To the hostages and their families, their lives are more important than anyone's in the building and the same is true for the people in the building.
There is no perfect ending to something like this and so, I guess no one's true answer would be known until they were actually in that situation.
gloria |
Paul E. Blais
Awareness Member
Post Number:
7
Registered: 01-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 03:50 pm: | |
They'd be making a grave error if I was in that situation since my own son was blown up by a terrorist truck bomb and 19 of his comrades were killed in the attack. I appreciate the humor some of you have tried to squeeze out of the situation, but for me it's too personal. I'd fire away. Sorry about the two innocent victims, but many more would be at stake otherwise. I'd take my medicine later and hope for some understanding.
P.E. Blais
Resurrecting Paul |
C. E. Winterland
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
1184
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2003 - 06:21 pm: | |
If I killed a terrorist bent on blowing up hundreds of innocent people, and some schmuck convinced a jury I needed to hang for it, I'd go quietly knowing that those hundreds of people lived because of an action I chose with that very thing in mind.
However, this terrorist could have had all the training there is and could believe he's the savior incarnate... he'd still be human, and there would STILL be another way, unless it was very well written and you could convince me there was no other conceivable way. In a novel, perhaps you could make a case that the terrorist would pull it off flawlessly. In real life, unless he was drugged up, he'd be a sack of mistakes waiting to happen. Then again... perhaps you could make the argument that I would be too.
One more question though... If it's just me, the terrorist and the two hostages he's threatening to kill... why doesn't the terrorist just kill me first? I'm in his way, right? So... that's his first mistake... he's already making them, and I could take him without killing the hostages. (Or I could convince myself I could, anyhow  )
CEW |
sophie simonet
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
665
Registered: 03-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 09:36 am: | |
My political input
Terrorists are up there with child molesters, and my opposition to the death penalty excludes these two groups.
My literary input
Heighten the stakes and make one of the hostages your wife or your son. You are the police force's best sniper and are duty-bound to give it your best shot. Only, the terrorist is too skilled. He's backing toward the building, shielded by the two hostages, explosives packed around his belt. The clock is ticking...
At the last moment, one of the hostages kicks the terrorist in the shins, ducks down, and you get a clear shot. You are spared a moral dilemma, the terrorist is dead, the hostages are spared, the people in the building safe, Hollywood-style. |
Laurel Johnson
Unity Member
Post Number:
2344
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 10:19 am: | |
Philosophically, the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the two. Yes. I know. Mr. Spock said it first. But the planeload of people that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11 had the same choice to make and made it.
But your question was.....could I do it as an individual. My answer is, I don't know. |
pacwriter
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
957
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 10:57 am: | |
The question asks "Do you as an American have the RESOLVE (Bush's word)to fight terrorism where you live? Is the RESOLVE only a political resolve of politics or is this something an average American resolve?
I am sure that those engaged in terrorism toward Americans believe this RESOLVE is only political. They believe what they see on CNN and they equate the anti-war movement against Viet Nam war to be the true picture of the average American's support for war.
The continuing "body count" in Iraq as the lead story on CNN and other American news is clear indication that the average American does not support the polictical resolve. The terrorists can only say, "I methods are working!" There is very little condemnation of news media who lead with stories that give the terrorists smiles of victory. Yes, it is news that Americans are dying, but this same news is being presented as, "Hey Americans wake up, bring your boys home, yours is a lost cause."
I realize that in the USA that politics of the news people play a major factor in HOW the news is braodcast. Democrats and republicans each USE the media for their best advantage. The Democrats want to make the war in Iraq a means to cast negativism on the Bush administration. Fair enough, but when such politics is costing us the lives of Americans in Iraq, it is time to put politics aside.
Do we as Americans have RESOLVE? Would we shoot the terrorist to defend innocent lives even if it means a "few" (the hostages) would die? Think back to the Iran hostage situation, Carter negotiated and this gave rise to the hopes of terrorists. We have the mess we have today IN PART because of Carter's actions way back then.
Saddam Hussin said BEFORE the war started, "Let the americans come. They may win the battles but when they come to occupy Iraq, we will kill them. Little by little, day by day, they shall die. They will have no stomach for the horror angry Iraqis will heap upon them." (paraphrase.
NOW BACK TO THE terrorists, the hostages and the truck - the average American Man will take some form of action!!! Me, I would do something, someone would die. Maybe a hostage, maybe a terrorist or maybe me. I have that kind of resolve on my own soil. So, the questio is -- do we have the same resolve on our soil as we would on other's soil?
Sooner or later, it will be back on our soil if we do not act on THIER soil.
http://www.pacwriter.netfirms.com/ |
sophie simonet
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
668
Registered: 03-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 11:43 am: | |
PAC, you have a point. Now that we're in Iraq, we have to show resolve. The die is cast. However, I question the morality and sagacity of going out there in the first place. (That's not to undermine the bravery of the young men and women serving their country.) I just don't see how bombing Iraq was supposed to somehow counter the terrorist threat. No matter how "smart" our bombs were, innocent people were killed and maimed, and the terrorists are still at large, bombing and ambushing with a vengeance. |
Claudia Turner VanLydegraf
Mindsight Moderator
Post Number:
662
Registered: 06-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 11:59 am: | |
As for the question about whether or not I would have the resolve to shoot one or two to maintain the hundreds, YOU BET I WOULD!! I certainly would not like it or relish it, but if that were the only way to stop the terrorist, I would shoot in a heartbeat. End of story. Just like PAC stated, the guys on the plane made the choice, fully knowing that they would not live through it. I would make a like choice, even if it meant my own death. No questions, no remorse. And I am a woman. I would do it so that, hopefully, there would be very little pain on the parts of the innocent hostages, if I could, and I would hope that if I were to die in the fracas, that it would be swiftly. But I would do it. Terrorists, in my opinion, have no place in the living, breathing world, for they are bottom feeders and do not deserve any compassion or consideration. The hostages, would need consideration and love and compassion, which would flow from me to them in every way I could do it, to make them understand that it would not be ill will from me, but if that were the only way to stop the SOB, then they would have to be in the front, not by their choice, but by the terrorists choice. Certainly, when they would be taken hostage, most people would realize that they might not come out of it alive, if they were rational about the process. If it were a child that was a hostage, then the problem turns into another ball game. As I don't think I could shoot a child, but most terrorists would not take a child hostage (a child is not a big enough shield to protect the whole terrorist and that is what they want, someone to protect them). Because the act of being a terrorist is a cowardice act at best. And using a hostage instead of facing the force by oneself is indicitave of that biggest yellow streak.
However, with that stated, I still think that there would be a possible way to shoot the terrorost without killing either of the hostages. A good shot can find a way. I am a good shot, and many others are also. Some of us have taken shooting courses and know how to and have a good eye for aimming a gun for just the right kill zone. Without hurting a shield target. Even in split seconds and with lots of confusion abound, a good shot can still be found.
Course, I am basically a cowgirl, desert rat, and a westerner, who has an attitude. And a conservative. I would shout "DIE, YOU SOB" and start firing.
Claudia |
Kevin P. Grover
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
926
Registered: 03-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 12:38 pm: | |
Three words......
Take
The
Shot
www.winterwolfpublishing.com |
F.E. Mazur (Unregistered Guest)
Work-in-progress guest
Posted From: 171.75.101.45
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, October 13, 2003 - 08:06 pm: | |
Seems to me that shooting the bystanders taken as hostage is premature. If you are near the truck and carry a gun, and the terrorist is attempting to get to the truck using the hostages as cover, I see two other possiblities...
1) If the terrorist makes it to the truck, you rush to the other side. He cannot see and cover both sides of a truck;
2) If you are nearer the truck than the terrorist, then you take possession of the truck.
It is important to remember that although saving lives is what you want, what the terrorist wants is the truck. If he does not get it, he fails. If he shoots his hostages, then he is shot, and he fails. If he gives up the truck and surrenders the hostages, then he has failed but he is alive and can hope to redeem himself in the future. |
Harry Simenon
Awareness Member
Post Number:
18
Registered: 10-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 01:03 pm: | |
Paul, I am very sorry to hear what happened to your son, I am convinced I would feel the same.
I have sketched this dilemma, as I am seeking some ethical answers, maybe I will use it in a novel someday though, but that wasn’t the main reason.
It is a difficult dilemma, it seems very logical to sacrifice the two hostages. I think I would do the same. But on the other hand I have the feeling there is something wrong about it. You will be sacrificing innocent people for a “higher” purpose. Isn’t the only thing what separates us from the terrorist the purpose itself, but not the method?
As for fighting terrorism in general, I think it should be possible, but difficult.
Listed below, are some thoughts. I hope for some criticism, as I hope to increase my insight.
Terrorism is the weapon of the desperate.
Although historically seen, it rarely worked.
Look at the Baader/Meinhoff (RAF), the ETA, the IRA, Sendero Luminoso, etcetera.
Ghandi and King achieved much more by peaceful ways of protesting, as they were able to convince rational people. Terrorism is unlikely to gain much support outside a certain group.
Common criminals are usually afraid to die, and afraid of punishment. These new terrorist, aren’t afraid of dying. In their after life, they will be rewarded with, (as rumor has it): 77 virgins, and their God’s approval. Also their families will be highly respected and taken care of. They think they are on a holy mission, which is why they are so difficult to stop. Would you stop if you thought that you were, for instance, saving humanity? At the moment they start their attack, they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain. (In their eyes, of-course.)
Behind the attacks are people who are doing the “programming” of them who will execute the attacks. I suspect that the terrorists that do the bombing, are usually people, who are easy to influence. Maybe this works like some sects work, slowly luring someone away from reality. Making them feel like their life has a deeper meaning. They will be martyrs. They will go into history.
What drives the “programmers” or leaders in the background?
Hatred for the West? Why? Fear that their religion, way of life and/or power will disappear? Revenge?
Why do they choose for terrorism to reach their goals? Are they desperate?
Is the West a threat?
It will be difficult to get all the leaders, but it might be possible to educate the people they use to do the work for them, but that will take time.
In the mean time, the West has to set an example! We have to behave in a way that will cause respect, how difficult it may be!
|
pacwriter
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
960
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 01:19 pm: | |
Harry - I see things much as you do.
My comments about RESOLVE are not a reflection of a political ideology but as I see it the only means to combat terrorism. Closing yours eyes or turning your back will only embolden the ones behind the terrorism.
I was amazed that the news media picked up on what I was saying about the viewers being critical of the media for thier reporting of bad news that gave the terrorists happy feelings. Still, it saddened me for them to say, "we report the news and bad news is what sells" (paraphrase).
I do not know how I would have in a hypothetical situation. There are too many factors left out of any senario, no matter how well thought out.
Resolve -- stay the course.
At this point it does not matter if the war in Iraq was justified or was a political staged event. What matters is where we go from here. Do we have the resolve to confront terrorism or are we like the Eloi of Welles TIME MACHINE, just accepting what others do to us?
the world is changing, there are those who are forcing us into a confrontation greater than the world has ever known -- The West (christian) vs. the East (Muslim). Our resolve must be to confront the terorist and if it happens to be in Iraq, then let us stay the course. Yes, they are sending terrorist from other countries into Iraq!! It is the battlefield our the new world war as much as Korea and Viet Nam were the battlefields of the Cold War.
Don't you folks find this an interesting thread?
http://www.pacwriter.netfirms.com/ |
LaurieAnne
Unity Member
Post Number:
1052
Registered: 12-2001
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 03:50 pm: | |
The problem with "moral dilemmas" are that each person's morals are not cut from the same piece of cheese cloth.
With a situation like was posed, first and foremost, the biggest majority of people will state, "there is going to be SOME way to eliminate the hostages without having to kill them just to kill the terrorist." The situation as posed allows for that opening. Plain and simple.
And as posed, using the title "terrorist" instills a different perseption in a person's mind than if you had labeled the antagonist as a madman with a truck loaded with explosives.
As was pointed out, the moral view is different from all sides. The moral view of the terrorist is that if he is killed in the act of sending "the amoral Americans" to judgement, this is even better than surviving the act. The moral view of the hostage situation would be to allow the death or take the lives of the hostages to avoid the potential loss of life.
Of course, now, if you were extremely convinced and proactive of the mindset that the world, especially the United States, is currently grossly overpopulated, your own moral view may be to stand down and allow the terrorist to attack, thereby decreasing the overtaxation of natural resources.
Then again, you may be of another point of view. Perhaps your point of view does not allow you the liberty to take another life, no matter the circumstances (including that pesky mosquito who feasts on your blood every! single! night! and knows not to leave your house because it will live forever). In that moral view, you, personally, could not be directly responsible for the taking of human life. And doing so, would be forced to drop the gun, by which you could not understand how it came to be in your possession. This would allow the gunman to overtake you, possibly kill you on his way to kill others. But so long as you did not DIRECTLY cause the loss of another life, your conscience is clear.
Then you have Little Johnny down the street who has been sexually assaulted by his in-prison/out-of-prison uncle for almost 15 years of his life. Uncle Clem done taught little Johnny how cool it is to watch things go kablooey. The amzing feats of destruction. Now, little Johnny, being conditioned to allowing this behavior--namely 'cause his Pa done went and got his sister pregnant, and his Ma is over at his cousin's house with his Aunt Maybel--misses his time with Uncle Clem, and hasn't seen anything blow up in a while. He's itchin' for a good explosion. Little Johnny would think the hostages are just some cousins who didn't know the rules and would offer to drive the truck and ask to trip the detonator.
(Just so danged creative, ain't I?)
Moral dilemmas are based on each person's individual morals. Those morals are shaped by our parents, families, and the societies in which we live. And yet, still, those morals can be easily shifted by contact with a persuasive person. Our moral standings will actually shift many times throughout our lives.
If this is something about which you may chance to scribe, you have many options available upon which to base your tale.
LA
LaurieAnne
http://www.authorsinkbooks.com |
LaurieAnne
Unity Member
Post Number:
1053
Registered: 12-2001
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 04:07 pm: | |
Actually, to also respond to some of your questions, as well:
I know that one thing that drives these "programmers" (not the only thing, just one thing): I mean no offense to Christianity in any way, shape, or form. Many of these terror groups are run by persons who are sick and tired of having Christianity being shoved in their faces day in and day out. On TV, on Radio, Everywhere they turn, the US Citizens (and I say that as Mexicans, Canadians, and all South American inhabitants are also AMERICANS by definition) are sending missionaries to convert them, and although in our own Constitution and Bill Of Rights, we state that we allow freedom of religion, we try to force these peoples to conform to our ways of life.
Add to that the loss of control. And the constant world policing. Where the missionaries begin, the military is soon to follow--to "protect" our own "programmers". Behind the military come the politicians and philanthropers who inform them that everything about their way of life is wrong. (Don't plant enough food for your family to survive for a year. Plant everything one crop and sell it to us cheap. Then we'll ship it to our country, sell it for 10 times what you were paid, and keep all the money. Meanwhile, by doing so, your fields will die because we won't teach you how to rotate crops, or provide you with irrigation, or fertilizers, or much of anything other than a below standard sale price.) And don't eat that plant. It's bad for you. I don't care if your grandmother lived to be 150 years old eating this plant everyday. Our doctor's know better than some senile old nut.
Is the West a threat?
I guess that depends again on your point of view.
LA
LaurieAnne
http://www.authorsinkbooks.com |
Fred Dungan
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
353
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 14, 2003 - 04:42 pm: | |
Point taken. Sometimes a gun isn't good enough. Let's give our hero a tank.
http://www.fdungan.com/bushwhacked.htm |
F.E. Mazur (Unregistered Guest)
Work-in-progress guest
Posted From: 171.75.101.125
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 05:41 am: | |
Although Americans, for the greater part, have always loved to root for the underdog (and I think this is true for the world in general), and although we love our biblical story of little David whipping Goliath, suddenly that understanding has left us now that we are the Goliath in the world. We can't alter our size, but perhaps we can alter how others perceive us. Perhaps we need to transform ourselves from the big bully to the big dumb, but kind-hearted Lennie of Steinbeck''s OF MICE AND MEN who wants only to tend the rabbits. If we do and can keep ourselves out of too much trouble, perhaps we'll have a different ending than Lennie. |
Fred Dungan
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
356
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - 10:53 pm: | |
Without discipline and order, civilization would perish. Whether we like it or not, the US Army has - largely by default and against its better judgment - become the world's police force. I'm satisfied that we are doing the best we can.
http://www.fdungan.com |
Ghassan (Unregistered Guest)
Work-in-progress guest
Posted From: 63.169.34.10
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 12:37 pm: | |
In a situation where someone threatens to kill hundreds and I have a chance to stop him, then I’d do what I can; but many answers went beyond the question.
The news media gives comfort to the terrorists. Ah, how well we sleep at night knowing that we frustrate the terrorists by broadcasting happy news about the occupation of Iraq! These terrorists must simply seethe in front of their satellite TVs, watching Fox News broadcast American defiance (we shall defeat the enemy – Saddam should feel envious), and they will soon realize that the bombs they detonate, killing, destroying, and maiming, have only strengthened our resolve, and they will soon give up their fight. It’s that simple. Besides, for every one of us they kill, we’ve killed over a thousand. Let the news media report that!
Terrorists and child molesters are equally depraved. First let’s compile the groups that have once been labeled terrorist: American revolutionaries, Polish Jews, French underground, IRA, Hizballah, Hammas, Boars, Beduin Arabs (fighting the Turks in WWI), Haganah, Irgun, Stern, Islamic Jihad, and more. I guess some might be offended by the implied equivalence of placing freedom fighters with terrorists. Or is it placing terrorists with freedom fighters? Gosh, let’s just call them terrorists all!
Only seventy-seven virgins! Muslims must surely shortchange their heaven. Heck, I’d like to be a Christian and get a chance to join those 144,000 saints serving God. Or does God serve them? This paradise business sure is confusing.
Please don’t think I’m offended, as ignorance doesn’t offend me. It’s just sad to experience the insanity that passes for mainstream politics in the US. We are ripe for fascism, and few Americans would even notice the difference.
Ghassan |
pacwriter
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
969
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 01:29 pm: | |
In the example Harry started
A person with a truck loaded with explosives
Where he is going?
If into a children's hospital in another country - he is a terrorist
If into a military headquarters of an occupying army in his country - he is a freedom fighter
http://www.pacwriter.netfirms.com/ |
sophie simonet
Wisdom Member
Post Number:
677
Registered: 03-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 02:22 pm: | |
Few people would classify the Polish Jews and the French Resistance as terrorists. Freedom fighters become terrorists when they direct their attacks on non-military targets (airliners, national landmarks, subways, pubs, nightclubs). I think the distinction is clear enough. |
Gloria Marlow
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
457
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 02:24 pm: | |
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, but in his mind, he was surely a freedom fighter...
There is a line that is crossed that turns one into another, I think.
I am all for freedom of religion, Christian, Islam, Jew, whatever...we all make that choice on our own...it doesn't really mean anything if the choice is forced upon you.
|
Ghassan (Unregistered Guest)
Work-in-progress guest
Posted From: 63.169.34.10
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 03:07 pm: | |
How about states that direct their attacks on non-military targets? Are they terrorists also?
The point I was making is that the term 'terrorist' has become meaningless in its politically laden context.
I have a hard time justifying any act of aggression against civilian populations, and I don't for a second accept the 'collateral damage' crap being touted as explanation. |
Gloria Marlow
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
459
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, October 16, 2003 - 08:19 pm: | |
Ghassan, Are you attempting to make the point that our answers would have been different if the person with the truck and the hostages had not been called a "terrorist"?
If that is what you think, I feel sorry for you and for anyone else who thinks that way, because you must never have experienced the extraordinary love that so many have for others. There are many people in this world who would lay down their lives for people they see about to be killed or hurt, regardless of the color, creed, etc. of the person plotting and carrying out the crime or the people they die to save.
|
Ghassan (Unregistered Guest)
Work-in-progress guest
Posted From: 63.169.34.10
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 06:26 am: | |
Gloria,
Please reserve your pity for yourself. I suggest you reread my first response - particularly the first sentence:
In a situation where someone threatens to kill hundreds and I have a chance to stop him, then I’d do what I can; but many answers went beyond the question.
I iterate: the answers went beyond the question, and I used specific examples. Terrorism has a specific meaning, but some of the answers on this thread were loaded with political insinuations that sounded rather ignorant.
Lastly, you are presumptious. You obviously know nothing about me and my life, so I would appreciate your spending your two cents on something more worthy of your time.
Thanks, but not thanks.
Much love, Ghassan. |
Gloria Marlow
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
460
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 07:55 am: | |
I apologize for the tone of my message...
I didn't mean to give you pity, of course, you don't need my pity...I just think so many people live looking for the worst in people..they agree as you did that they would do something, but then seem to think they are the only ones who would.
Again, I apologize, I didn't mean my message to be as personal as you took it...
I really did think that what you were getting at was that we were all saying "terrorist = mideastern people" and therefore that was the only people we would stand against in defense of others...
You seemed to have some sort of point and I'm sorry that I obviously mistook it.
I will agree with you that I am uneducated and naive...
Gloria
|
Ghassan (Unregistered Guest)
Work-in-progress guest
Posted From: 63.169.34.10
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 08:20 am: | |
Dear Gloria,
I didn't imply you are uneducated and naive either. Nor do I associate ignorance with education, or the lack of it. I consider myself relatively educated, but I'm also first to admit ignorance of many subjects. It's just all too convenient for some people to spout statements of which they know little because they read an opinion that makes sense, and I might be guilty of that sometimes. I'd appreciate being called for my ignorance, really I would. I can take it and dish it just as exuberantly as the next guy.
No hard feelings.
Ghassan. |
Gloria Marlow
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
461
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 09:24 am: | |
Thank you...
Politics are not something I get into often with people...Political debates are only ways for people to give their individual opinions. Which is fine, but because each perons is different, there can never be a right or wrong answer. Intolerance is usually brought out best by those involved in such debates, because usually their opinion is formed and no matter how much sense what someone else says make, they can't alter that opinion. Life requires change in our attitudes, in our belief system, in our own actions...each event, each moment, our world evolves into something different than it was previously, it is up to us as humans to face those changes and change ourselves if necessary.
I have my opinion, formed on my own research and thought processes. To the consternation of my family, once I began college and took some law classes, my totally conservative Christian attitude began to change, and truthfully, not because of my professors and their opinions, but because of the of the law I read...I'm still conservative on many issues, but I understand that there are some things that just can't be mandated by law...
For example, freedom of religion...that can't be an exclusive Christianity only law. I am a Christian, but I realize that to protect my own right to worship, I must be tolerant of others right to worship their God in their way. As I've said previously, as a Christian, I believe that it only means something if I choose Him myself...to mandate Christianity would defeat the whole "choose me this day whom you will serve"...and yes, to anyone, I do know that verse is found in Old Testament before Christianity...but there are many religions who recognize the same God of the Old Testament.
I came away from college with a much more patriotic view and with more respect for our founding fathers and their insight into what would make a country work in such a way...Yes, we have our problems here, but it still works better than most.
Still, I believe that our government is too much into EVERYONE's lives, domestically and abroad, I respect the laws of our land, but they get a little ridiculous when they begin to infringe on every aspect of being from adding a carport to your house, to casting a net off your own dock, etc., etc. and I believe the only time America should step into a war is to protect ourselves, not necessarily our monetary interests, or when one country attacks another and the country being attacked wants our help. I do not think we should ever step in to a civil war...what if some other country had decided to jump into our own civil war and help the South instead of the North...life would be a lot different here and I can't say that it would be a good different either...
Anyway, all of that is just my opinion....and I don't know if it makes sense...I may be rambling as I often do...
Gloria
|
Ghassan (Unregistered Guest)
Work-in-progress guest
Posted From: 63.169.34.10
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 01:43 pm: | |
You make a lot of sense, Gloria. I live in the South - have done so for almost two decades - and I understand you clearly. My mother-in-law, though not a lawyer, appears to share much of your outlook on life, and (the horror) she's a Republican!
I can't say for certain what's right or wrong; but I do recognize fallacies when I come across them.
Thanks for sharing your views.
Ghassan. |
Gloria Marlow
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
464
Registered: 04-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 02:05 pm: | |
While I haven't yet changed my voting card, I consider myself a Republican also and I'm not a lawyer either. I took law classes to get a paralegal degree, but I had wonderful teachers who made us THINK about legal issues and do mock trials which included every aspect of preparation and looking at issues frm both sides while pretending we were the lawyers instead of just the helpers.
|
Fred Dungan
Hsympothai Member
Post Number:
362
Registered: 10-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 08:43 pm: | |
How about this for a twist on our terrorist story? The terrorist is a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. He is demanding that we all go deep into debt to come up with $87 billion for "protection." Either we pay or we risk losing our freedom. We know that most of the money will not go where it is needed. Now what?
http://www.fdungan.com/bushwhacked.htm |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page