Should The Soldier Allow Himself to Be Killed Rather Than...

Eyeron · 20th December 2009, 08:53 AM

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

Hux · 20th December 2009, 08:56 AM

Id shoot first and ask philosophical questions later.

Gate2501 · 20th December 2009, 08:57 AM

Isn't the child going to blow up at any rate in this hypothetical?

Kill it.

DallasDad · 20th December 2009, 08:58 AM

If there's no peaceful way to disarm the child, shoot it. Cry and curse humanity afterward.

Eyeron · 20th December 2009, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Isn't the child going to blow up at any rate in this hypothetical?

Actually the situation itself, that of a child suicide bomber, isn't really hypothetical.

Gate2501 · 20th December 2009, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Actually the situation itself, that of a child suicide bomber, isn't really hypothetical.

Well, hypothetical or not, I see this as a no-brainer.

You kill the suicide bomber, or the bomber dies anyway and takes you with him.

X · 20th December 2009, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Gate2501

You kill the suicide bomber, or the bomber dies anyway and takes you with him.

True, and all the more tragic for it.
Still, I feel like a **** for saying that.

Beerina · 20th December 2009, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by Gate2501

Isn't the child going to blow up at any rate in this hypothetical?

Kill it.

Except it's not a hypothetical. It happens.

And it happened in Vietnam, too.

And they end up shooting kids who are not wired sometimes, too.

Now think about it a moment. If the US soldiers just let themselves get blown up, would this discourage or encourage suicide bombers from wiring even more children?

Gate2501 · 20th December 2009, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Beerina

Except it's not a hypothetical. It happens.

And it happened in Vietnam, too.

And they end up shooting kids who are not wired sometimes, too.

I will clarify:

I think that if you suspect a child of being a suicide bomber, and that child is running towards you and not listening to your shouts for him to stop(I'm sure that in a war zone, you will know how to at least yell "STOP" in his language), you have no choice but to kill or disable him before he gets close enough to harm you with the suspected device. Even if this means killing a kid who is not wired sometimes.

Quote:

Now think about it a moment. If the US soldiers just let themselves get blown up, would this discourage or encourage suicide bombers from wiring even more children?

A good point. I don't know how effective this tactic actually is however.

Dragonrock · 20th December 2009, 10:28 AM

I suspect that it is less effective at killing soldiers than demoralizing them and turning locals against them. The locals tend to blame the soldiers rather than the one who gave the kid the grenade and sent him off to die.

Steelmage · 20th December 2009, 10:00 PM

Unfortunely, the child will die either way, so it is better to kill the child then hunt down the bastard would make the child a bomb and kill him.

popscythe · 21st December 2009, 04:42 AM

Suicide bomb child before child can suicide bomb you.

Darat · 21st December 2009, 04:44 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise?

Hux · 21st December 2009, 04:44 AM

So we are agreed the kid's toast.

Would anyone, given the circumstances, consider otherwise?

Fishstick · 21st December 2009, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise?

I don't think suicide bombing toirtoises would be very effective, unless sent at the elderly.

Cainkane1 · 21st December 2009, 05:06 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

I know a man who had to kill a woman with a baby on her back. This was in Vietnam. A woman was running towards a a group of soldiers carrying a hand grenade and she was shot dead. The grenade went off and killed the baby. Bad thing to happen but I fault the mother and whoever put her up to doing that.

Hux · 21st December 2009, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Fishstick

I don't think suicide bombing toirtoises would be very effective, unless sent at the elderly.

Turtle carnage.

Marquis de Carabas · 21st December 2009, 06:23 AM

Remind me again why it matters if the kid has a bomb?

Darat · 21st December 2009, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Remind me again why it matters if the kid has a bomb?

Bombs can be useful so you don't want to accidentally explode one.

Dancing David · 21st December 2009, 06:58 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

Um in war you kill those who are trying to kill you, ergo if the child clearly has a bomb and is trying to kill you or orthers...

jadey · 21st December 2009, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise?

If you had to choose between two scenarios, which would you choose?

1) Killing a child suicide bomber.
2) Killing an adult suicide bomber.

I tend to think that the younger the individual, the less responsible they are, and the less they deserve the consequences of their actions. I suspect that most of the shooters in the above situations would think it matters.

Marquis de Carabas · 21st December 2009, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by jadey

If you had to choose between two scenarios, which would you choose?

1) Killing a child suicide bomber.
2) Killing an adult suicide bomber.

Are you sure I can't have both?

jadey · 21st December 2009, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Are you sure I can't have both?

You are a Dark Lord. Next, you'll be demanding the tortoise as well.

fuelair · 21st December 2009, 07:59 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

Soldier's duty is to kill the child - seen the same "problem" in shows (mostly British) where child has a pistol pointed at soldier. If you cannot follow procedure - which means you stop anyone trying to kill you or fellow soldiers - then you are no good as a soldier. Not all people are - nothing to be ashamed of - but weigh life value against life value. And, in the scenario you give the kid dies regardless.

triadboy · 21st December 2009, 08:04 AM

Take the child out (preferably with an air-launched, heat-seeking missile)

gambling_cruiser · 21st December 2009, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

What a stupid scenario.
The child will die either way, so what should be moral about dying with the suicide bomber and risking the life of your comrades?
It would be a cross negligence of your duty at your comrades to not kill the attacker to save their and your life.

Beerina · 21st December 2009, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas

Remind me again why it matters if the kid has a bomb?

Bombs can be useful so you don't want to accidentally explode one.

Exactly. If you stop the bomb from exploding and killing you, you can recover it, and sell it for forty silver at the vendor's.

Unfortunately, there are class 2 suicide bombers, where innocent victims are sent in, but someone far away watching does the detonation by radio signal. This makes recovery almost impossible, because even if you safely shoot the bomber, the remote person will just wait for you to approach and then detonate it.

Eyeron · 21st December 2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise?

Because I've heard people talk about how people should never draw a firearm on a child no matter what. And that anybody who does so is a monster.

gambling_cruiser · 21st December 2009, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

Because I've heard people talk about how people should never draw a firearm on a child no matter what. And that anybody who does so is a monster.

That are people who haven't encountered a suicide bomber.

gambling_cruiser · 21st December 2009, 11:54 AM

And yes war is a messy busyness where nice, nice doesn't help to survive.

Cainkane1 · 21st December 2009, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by X

True, and all the more tragic for it.
Still, I feel like a **** for saying that.

Heres another one of my Vietnam horror stories. The Vietcong would sometimes sit a small child on the ground in front of a begging bowl. The area in front of the child was mined. Children are often used by terrorists.

Marquis de Carabas · 21st December 2009, 12:33 PM

Holy crap that's fiendish! So you'd die just because you were trying to steal money from a child beggar? That's not cool.

Eyeron · 21st December 2009, 12:52 PM

I hope that's a joke.

If it's not, then that completely misses the mark. It's for soldiers who would give the child some money. And it's more monstrous to think that a person would use a child to lure a soldier in like because the mine would kill the child and the soldier.

Marquis de Carabas · 21st December 2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

It's for soldiers who would give the child some money.

So they're smart mines who only blow up when the generous approach, and leave the greedy bastards alone? I need to find out how to get me some of those.

Darth Rotor · 21st December 2009, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Steelmage

Unfortunely, the child will die either way, so it is better to kill the child then hunt down the bastard would make the child a bomb and kill him.

This.

@ MdC: please, don't stop, yer ticklin' my funny bone.

newton3376 · 21st December 2009, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

I would do what I was trained to do.....2 in the chest and 1 in the head.

After that I can ponder the philosophical/religious/moral implications of what I had done....

And after pondering it I would do the exact same thing if the same situation arose....

fuelair · 21st December 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by newton3376

I would do what I was trained to do.....2 in the chest and 1 in the head.

After that I can ponder the philosophical/religious/moral implications of what I had done....

And after pondering it I would do the exact same thing if the same situation arose....

Been visiting Mozambique have we?

Mason · 21st December 2009, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by newton3376

I would do what I was trained to do.....2 in the chest and 1 in the head.

After that I can ponder the philosophical/religious/moral implications of what I had done....

And after pondering it I would do the exact same thing if the same situation arose....

I find that one single shot to the vicinity of the chest usually does the trick.

But then again, I carry a 203, so YMMV.

ElightenMe · 21st December 2009, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeron

There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this:

Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?

What deems a child's life more important?

Eyeron · 21st December 2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

What deems a child's life more important?

I don't know. And I wish I knew. As for myself I don't find a child's life more important than an adult's, they are equally valuable. But there are people out there who believe in protecting children trumps any adult's rights.

20th December 2009, 08:53 AM	#1
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Should The Soldier Allow Himself to Be Killed Rather Than... There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this: Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm?
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

20th December 2009, 08:56 AM	#2
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,080	Id shoot first and ask philosophical questions later.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,080	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

20th December 2009, 08:58 AM	#4
DallasDad Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 688	If there's no peaceful way to disarm the child, shoot it. Cry and curse humanity afterward.
DallasDad Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 688

20th December 2009, 09:00 AM	#5
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Quote: Isn't the child going to blow up at any rate in this hypothetical? Actually the situation itself, that of a child suicide bomber, isn't really hypothetical.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

20th December 2009, 09:43 AM	#7
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Originally Posted by Gate2501 You kill the suicide bomber, or the bomber dies anyway and takes you with him. True, and all the more tragic for it. Still, I feel like a **** for saying that.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

20th December 2009, 08:57 AM	#3
Gate2501 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,377	Isn't the child going to blow up at any rate in this hypothetical? Kill it.

20th December 2009, 09:07 AM	#6
Gate2501 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,377	Originally Posted by Eyeron Actually the situation itself, that of a child suicide bomber, isn't really hypothetical. Well, hypothetical or not, I see this as a no-brainer. You kill the suicide bomber, or the bomber dies anyway and takes you with him.

20th December 2009, 10:00 AM	#8
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Gate2501 Isn't the child going to blow up at any rate in this hypothetical? Kill it. Except it's not a hypothetical. It happens. And it happened in Vietnam, too. And they end up shooting kids who are not wired sometimes, too. Now think about it a moment. If the US soldiers just let themselves get blown up, would this discourage or encourage suicide bombers from wiring even more children?
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? Last edited by Beerina; 20th December 2009 at 10:02 AM.

20th December 2009, 10:17 AM	#9
Gate2501 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 1,377	Originally Posted by Beerina Except it's not a hypothetical. It happens. And it happened in Vietnam, too. And they end up shooting kids who are not wired sometimes, too. I will clarify: I think that if you suspect a child of being a suicide bomber, and that child is running towards you and not listening to your shouts for him to stop(I'm sure that in a war zone, you will know how to at least yell "STOP" in his language), you have no choice but to kill or disable him before he gets close enough to harm you with the suspected device. Even if this means killing a kid who is not wired sometimes. Quote: Now think about it a moment. If the US soldiers just let themselves get blown up, would this discourage or encourage suicide bombers from wiring even more children? A good point. I don't know how effective this tactic actually is however.

20th December 2009, 10:28 AM	#10
Dragonrock Militant Elvisian Tacoist Join Date: May 2002 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 9,856	I suspect that it is less effective at killing soldiers than demoralizing them and turning locals against them. The locals tend to blame the soldiers rather than the one who gave the kid the grenade and sent him off to die.
	__________________ ...it rings a bell in my head that just don't chime...--pillory There is no God but the Great Taco In The Sky and Elvis is his prophet.

20th December 2009, 10:00 PM	#11
Steelmage Muse Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 630	Unfortunely, the child will die either way, so it is better to kill the child then hunt down the bastard would make the child a bomb and kill him.
	__________________ Anything makes sense as long as you do not think about it. -Steelmage It is better to want what you can't have then to have what you don't want. -Denny Crane, Boston Legal

21st December 2009, 04:42 AM	#12
popscythe Space Opera Symphony Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Silent Hill, Oregon Posts: 554	Suicide bomb child before child can suicide bomb you.
	__________________ "If using cute little pejoratives that are recently invented is acceptable but using established ones is unacceptable then I'm Freetarded." Pejorative for one who supports (the) freedom (of speech)

21st December 2009, 04:44 AM	#13
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Originally Posted by Eyeron There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this: Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm? Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

21st December 2009, 04:57 AM	#15
Fishstick Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,303	Originally Posted by Darat Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise? I don't think suicide bombing toirtoises would be very effective, unless sent at the elderly.

21st December 2009, 05:06 AM	#16
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	Originally Posted by Eyeron There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this: Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm? I know a man who had to kill a woman with a baby on her back. This was in Vietnam. A woman was running towards a a group of soldiers carrying a hand grenade and she was shot dead. The grenade went off and killed the baby. Bad thing to happen but I fault the mother and whoever put her up to doing that.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

21st December 2009, 05:16 AM	#17
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,080	Originally Posted by Fishstick I don't think suicide bombing toirtoises would be very effective, unless sent at the elderly. Turtle carnage.
Hux Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 1,080	__________________ *...people of faith who are that intelligent they've only managed to fool themselves* - MARDUK

21st December 2009, 06:23 AM	#18
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Remind me again why it matters if the kid has a bomb?
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

21st December 2009, 06:25 AM	#19
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas Remind me again why it matters if the kid has a bomb? Bombs can be useful so you don't want to accidentally explode one.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

21st December 2009, 06:58 AM	#20
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,725	Originally Posted by Eyeron There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this: Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm? Um in war you kill those who are trying to kill you, ergo if the child clearly has a bomb and is trying to kill you or orthers...
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

21st December 2009, 07:17 AM	#21
jadey Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Merry Land Posts: 2,378	Originally Posted by Darat Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise? If you had to choose between two scenarios, which would you choose? 1) Killing a child suicide bomber. 2) Killing an adult suicide bomber. I tend to think that the younger the individual, the less responsible they are, and the less they deserve the consequences of their actions. I suspect that most of the shooters in the above situations would think it matters.

21st December 2009, 07:36 AM	#22
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by jadey If you had to choose between two scenarios, which would you choose? 1) Killing a child suicide bomber. 2) Killing an adult suicide bomber. Are you sure I can't have both?
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

21st December 2009, 07:39 AM	#23
jadey Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Merry Land Posts: 2,378	Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas Are you sure I can't have both? You are a Dark Lord. Next, you'll be demanding the tortoise as well.

21st December 2009, 07:59 AM	#24
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,957	Originally Posted by Eyeron There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this: Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm? Soldier's duty is to kill the child - seen the same "problem" in shows (mostly British) where child has a pistol pointed at soldier. If you cannot follow procedure - which means you stop anyone trying to kill you or fellow soldiers - then you are no good as a soldier. Not all people are - nothing to be ashamed of - but weigh life value against life value. And, in the scenario you give the kid dies regardless.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,957	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

21st December 2009, 08:04 AM	#25
triadboy Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Tucson, Arizona Posts: 2,556	Take the child out (preferably with an air-launched, heat-seeking missile)

21st December 2009, 08:49 AM	#26
gambling_cruiser Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 690	Originally Posted by Eyeron There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this: Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm? What a stupid scenario. The child will die either way, so what should be moral about dying with the suicide bomber and risking the life of your comrades? It would be a cross negligence of your duty at your comrades to not kill the attacker to save their and your life.

21st December 2009, 08:54 AM	#27
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Darat Originally Posted by Marquis de Carabas Remind me again why it matters if the kid has a bomb? Bombs can be useful so you don't want to accidentally explode one. Exactly. If you stop the bomb from exploding and killing you, you can recover it, and sell it for forty silver at the vendor's. Unfortunately, there are class 2 suicide bombers, where innocent victims are sent in, but someone far away watching does the detonation by radio signal. This makes recovery almost impossible, because even if you safely shoot the bomber, the remote person will just wait for you to approach and then detonate it.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

21st December 2009, 11:15 AM	#28
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Quote: Why does it matter (in this instance) if the suicide bomber is a child or an adult or indeed a tortoise? Because I've heard people talk about how people should never draw a firearm on a child no matter what. And that anybody who does so is a monster.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	Last edited by Eyeron; 21st December 2009 at 11:17 AM.

21st December 2009, 11:53 AM	#29
gambling_cruiser Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 690	Originally Posted by Eyeron Because I've heard people talk about how people should never draw a firearm on a child no matter what. And that anybody who does so is a monster. That are people who haven't encountered a suicide bomber.

21st December 2009, 11:54 AM	#30
gambling_cruiser Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 690	And yes war is a messy busyness where nice, nice doesn't help to survive.

21st December 2009, 12:24 PM	#31
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	Originally Posted by X True, and all the more tragic for it. Still, I feel like a **** for saying that. Heres another one of my Vietnam horror stories. The Vietcong would sometimes sit a small child on the ground in front of a begging bowl. The area in front of the child was mined. Children are often used by terrorists.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

21st December 2009, 12:33 PM	#32
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Holy crap that's fiendish! So you'd die just because you were trying to steal money from a child beggar? That's not cool.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

21st December 2009, 12:52 PM	#33
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774	I hope that's a joke. If it's not, then that completely misses the mark. It's for soldiers who would give the child some money. And it's more monstrous to think that a person would use a child to lure a soldier in like because the mine would kill the child and the soldier.
Eyeron Guest Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,774

21st December 2009, 01:15 PM	#34
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by Eyeron It's for soldiers who would give the child some money. So they're smart mines who only blow up when the generous approach, and leave the greedy bastards alone? I need to find out how to get me some of those.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

21st December 2009, 01:36 PM	#35
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,265	Originally Posted by Steelmage Unfortunely, the child will die either way, so it is better to kill the child then hunt down the bastard would make the child a bomb and kill him. This. @ MdC: please, don't stop, yer ticklin' my funny bone.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 21st December 2009 at 01:38 PM.

21st December 2009, 01:49 PM	#36
newton3376 The Truth Movement.....still not at 1% Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 1,315	Originally Posted by Eyeron There are such things as child suicide bombers before. Of that there can be no doubt. So the question I put to you is this: Is it morally right for a soldier to kill a child who intends to bomb him and his friend with the intent of killing him and other soldiers with a suicide bomb? Or is a child's life so important that a soldier should just allow himself be killed rather than allow the child to come to harm? I would do what I was trained to do.....2 in the chest and 1 in the head. After that I can ponder the philosophical/religious/moral implications of what I had done.... And after pondering it I would do the exact same thing if the same situation arose....
	__________________ AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%