ForumGarden

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:32 pm**

Far Rider wrote: ahhh im not sure of the standard today, or the current rules of engagement.

However, you never take a shot unless you have a very good idea of where it will land if you miss... key there is ..of course... never miss.

"How" one is killed in battle according to the geneva convention is important.

But your going to try not to kill as many people in the coming yr right ? You said !

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:09 pm**

OK - I have to say my peace about rules of engagement when it comes to protecting me and mine. The enemy dies and me and mine do not. This thread is about taking an innocent life - someone who supposedly does not have a choice - Nomad never said if they had a choice. That is soooo different than protecting you and yours ------ unless they were planning to take one of mine as the innocent who would be the cure to ALL cancer. I would be the mother bear of all time.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:18 pm**

Far Rider wrote: Choices are tough sometimes...

Put yourself in the snipers scope....

You have the rules of engagment that say no 50 cal shots on personell... they are for equipment only.. like vehicles and stuff...

You have in your sights a man with a large caliber sniper rifle (.308) he is in range and targeting a allied troop.... (remember he has no rules of engagement)...

The only weapon you have at your disposal to take him out is your 50 cal sniper rifle... do you break the rules of engagement for which you swore an oath to keep and kill the sniper, or let him shoot an allied troop?

Easy huh.... you of course take the shot, cut him in half when the round enters his spine....

Question is now... do you lie when you write it up? Cause you just violated the UCMJ... and can be charged with a war crime!

I agree..... the SIL had a really hard time with 50 cal in Iraq on his first mission. He was supposed to shoot without question unless the Iraqi vehicles moved to the side of the road. His orders were to ask the mission commander if he could he could fire on civilian vehicles - he asked - the mission commander told him how to react in the real war.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:22 pm**

cars wrote: Surely you jest! Guess you're not a member of PETA!!:-2

refresh my memory what is it Peta stands for besides some dope making money from his ignorance???

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:22 pm**

I couldn't murder anyone to save someone from dying of CANCER.. Murder is murder.. I couldn't live with my self.

Who's to say they would be cured in the first place.

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:38 pm**

Far Rider wrote: they taste like chicken toopeople eating the animals :yh_pig :yh_chickn :yh_cow :yh_monkey

Posted: **Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:07 pm**

SnoozeControl wrote: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

oh yeah those idiots show up every year at the Chuckwagon races and rodeo here in the summer. Idjits.

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:16 am**

The title of the thread is "Murder" and this last page is about PETA. This concerns me. I really have to go back and read the whole thing, 'cuz I'm worried. Anyone want to give me the abridged version?

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:26 am**

^ :wah:

Getting back to the topic... absolutely not!

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:54 am**

BabyRider wrote: The title of the thread is "Murder" and this last page is about PETA. This concerns me. I really have to go back and read the whole thing, 'cuz I'm worried. Anyone want to give me the abridged version?

Abridged version:

Statement was made: Here's a thought Prisoners for science... I am all for it.

I figure they could be used for "medical testing"!

The point about PETA was, that if not a member of that org, which is not to harm animals with scientific testing, then probably harming humans instead would be ok also! (prisoners not humans?) :-2

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:39 am**

No! I don't believe that would be something I could believe in. Everybody has the right to life.

Posted: **Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:44 pm**

Actually when you think about it after all is said & done the answer to this perplexing question is: no one can really predict what they would actually do in the "real life" situation, until that time arises. All these hypothetical opinions offered for or against, is just that, hypothetical. (Many just "politically correct") No one really knows (no matter what they honestly think they believe) what they would be capable of doing until they actually were faced with that delima!

I myself don't believe in or condone murder, but hypothetically speaking, I believe I would be able sacrafice "one" to save "millions". Now if it turned out that "one" had to be a relative of mine, well then all bets are off! :-2

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:05 am**

Nomad wrote: Would you be willing to murder an innocent person if it would cure cancer ?I'm too much of a cynic to believe it would work. No, I wouldn't.

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:14 am**

cars wrote: Actually when you think about it after all is said & done the answer to this perplexing question is: no one can really predict what they would actually do in the "real life" situation, until that time arises. All these hypothetical opinions offered for or against, is just that, hypothetical. (Many just "politically correct") No one really knows (no matter what they honestly think they believe) what they would be capable of doing until they actually were faced with that delima!

I myself don't believe in or condone murder, but hypothetically speaking, I believe I would be able sacrafice "one" to save "millions". Now if it turned out that "one" had to be a relative of mine, well then all bets are off! :-2Thanks for sucking the magic out of it ... um ..., magic sucker! You probably pulled Santa's beard when you were a kid, didn't you? :sneaky:

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2005 5:58 am**

Accountable wrote: Thanks for sucking the magic out of it ... um ..., magic sucker! You probably pulled Santa's beard when you were a kid, didn't you? :sneaky:

Why yes I did, how'd you know, & I got what I wanted! :sneaky:

Posted: **Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:00 pm**

cars wrote: Why yes I did, how'd you know, & I got what I wanted! :sneaky:There's just no justice in the world.

:D

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:20 am**

SnoozeControl wrote: Me again...
You're so cute!

What happened?;)

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:20 am**

SnoozeControl wrote: Me again...

Stop showing cutesy pics of yourself ! Im apt to get all warm & fuzzy towards you. I know you dont want that.

Posted: **Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:26 am**

Oh Snooze, you're so cute!

Posted: **Sun Nov 20, 2005 10:46 am**

Nomad. By the time you found an innocent person to die everyone would have died of their cancers.

Posted: **Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:55 am**

Nomad wrote: Would you be willing to murder an innocent person if it would cure cancer ?

OK, I saw this once in a movie or a Twilight Zone or Outer Limits or something like that. Big contagious disease is taking over the world and everyone has to have their blood tested for a special enzyme. Mother and father take kid to the hospital for testing only to find out he has special blood. Blood that can cure the world of all diseases. The doc tells them they need his blood, the parents are happy to give him some. . . . then the clincher. . . . . . . . They have to take all of it. Of course, she screams and faints.

Yada, yada, yada, long story short, they give up their child to save the world. Everyone is happy and all is right with the world.

Fade to black

Posted: **Sun Nov 20, 2005 3:17 pm**

lol. I remember that episode. What's stupid about it is that they could have all they want a little at a time, he could make more.

As for me...no. Burning in Hell for all eternity is not what I call a good trade-off. Even if it did save a lot of people. Besides, now you are playing God. What if cancer has a purpose in life? I say this as my Father-in-law lies dying from pancreatic cancer.