From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 13:51:08 MDT
>From: CurtAdams@aol.com
>>talon57@well.com writes:
>>I did not say it was okay to kill an unarmed reporter, I said it
>>was okay to kill anyone (including reporters) who violate a
>>closed military zone.
>Why is being a "closed military zone" of any ethical relevance?
I didn't say it was of ethical relevance, but it sure as hell is of
practical relevance.
When you approach a closed military zone without permission, your
status changes from "unarmed reporter" to "unarmed unauthorized
intruder" not that being unarmed makes any difference.
Closed military zone means intruders shot on sight.
>If the Chinese declared their re-education camps "closed military
>zones" should we stop investigating them?
Try getting near one, let us know how it goes... See if anyone says
boo after you disappear.
>Is that any ethical (as opposed to practical) reason to stop?
Knock yourself out.
>The Israeli army lacks the ethical credibility to be allowed to do
>what it wishes without some sort of accountability.
Really? Sounds like personnal opinion, no comment necessary.
Speaking of ethics, why was it that all those who try to pin the
Geneva convention on everything didn't say a word about the
Palestinians obvious violations?
Double standard?
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:27 MST