To me, the live of an Iraqi doesn't hold much value. Even less, a palestenian. If I had a choice between the death of an Israeli or an Iraqi, and I don't know either one personally, I would prefer the Iraqi dies. I know this isn't politically correct, but I don't care. Political correctness is for pansies. II

---

We simply see this issue differently. When someone have to make a choice on who should stay or go the choice is driven by personal preferences indeed, and it is understandable. But my point is that we face two different issues here: value of life and importancy of people personally to us (hating someone is also the matter of importancy but in the negative range). The second factor makes you choose, and whatever your decision is you are to feel guilty afterwards. As opposite, if you being cold minded send anyone to surely die you are a beast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alesha: As opposite, if you being cold minded send anyone to surely die you are a beast.

---

Alesh, this is a little too general, isn't it? There are times when a leader will send his soldiers to battle, knowing that surely many will die. And there is no guilt envolved, because guilt is the result of one regretting his/her decision. This doesn't make the leader a beast, necessarily. II

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alesha: Kostya, you missed my second comment (see above). That was regarding your examples. To me value(life A) = value(life B) = infinity. As for the measure I use my principles one of which is exactly as this: human life is priceless, we have no right to take it away from anyone. This is one of the reason (not the only, but the prevailing one) why I oppose death penalty.

---

Ok, let's say we don't have the right to take away anyone’s life. Then, do we have the right to prolong the life of the person? Using your argument, that would also be against natural course of person’s life. Do we have the right to deny medicine or treatment to a dying person? If not, how much medicine or treatment should we be obligated to provide? If the person is lost, how much effort should be spent to locate him or her? Priceless might also mean that the price can't be determined, but in this world everything has a price.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alesha: As opposite, if you being cold minded send anyone to surely die you are a beast.

---

Alesh, this is a little too general, isn't it? There are times when a leader will send his soldiers to battle, knowing that surely many will die. And there is no guilt envolved, because guilt is the result of one regretting his/her decision. This doesn't make the leader a beast, necessarily. II

---

If you send your soldiers to surely die (not trying to avoid huge loss of lives) and if you dont feel guilty afterwards then you are not a good commander and a beast. If you a good commander and you have no choice but lose people you tell them honestly what they are facing, and you will carry on this heavy cross (I am not sure if this exspression works in English) through your entire life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kostya: Ok, let's say we don't have the right to take away anyone’s life. Then, do we have the right to prolong the life of the person? Using your argument, that would also be against natural course of person’s life.

---

I didnt understand the question. If I get your logic correctly you suggest ill people don't get medical treatment as it would extend their natural life duration. Right? If not please clarify. May be this your question is connected to the next paragraph (authonasia)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kostya: Do we have the right to deny medicine or treatment to a dying person? If not, how much medicine or treatment should we be obligated to provide? If the person is lost, how much effort should be spent to locate him or her? Priceless might also mean that the price can't be determined, but in this world everything has a price.

---

Authonasia is a very difficult problem. Strictly speaking it is still a murder as you intentionally turn off the medical equipment supporting the person. Of course in some cases this is hopeless to see the person coming back to life, and being in a coma is not a life anyone would desire to experience. However I still think we have no right to turn the switch and send the patient out. We also can not deny treatment to anyone who is in need of it. Regarding searching efforts I would put maximum efforts, and it is difficult to preset any time frames in the case. For example now the sailors are still working at Karmadon regardless that there is no hope to find anyone alive, and if I was in charge of the search operation and if I had the possibility to help I would not be able to refuse to continue if the relatives still want to proceed. From conventional point of view I am irrational at times, but this is in my nature. I am somewhat uncomortable with people who are completely rational in everything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity: To me, the live of an Iraqi doesn't hold much value. Even less, a palestenian. If I had a choice between the death of an Israeli or an Iraqi, and I don't know either one personally, I would prefer the Iraqi dies. I know this isn't politically correct, but I don't care. Political correctness is for pansies. II

---

Exactly. Especially when the Iraqis and Palestinians don't value their lives whatsoever. The difference is that Americans don't strap on belt-bombs and don't poison their own people with deadly gas when the people speak up or voice their dissent or disapproval and they sure as hell aren't trying to develop weapons of mass destruction just to "Destroy the Infidels that are America (in America's case it would be Destroy the infidels in Iraq!)" So if you're asking why, in some situations one life could be valued more than another, well because one life may be willing, able and determined to snuff out as many innnocent lives as it can (Iraqis), while the other life just wants to live in peace (Americans). --Fimchick

---

--Fimchick

Heh well I think we cannot allow ourselves to demonize and categorize a particular group of people as "terrorists." The sucide bombers from what I have seen on TV are young people who are usually more easily conned, manipulted into becoming sucide bombers and when Americans or Isrealies alike become victims of sucide bombings both react with "OHH well you know they are ALL terrorists, none of them value human life...we should kill them ALL.... they are sub-human...they are not one of 'us'..." one of the tricks to get people to do evil is to make them to believe they are doing good while in reality they are doing evil and that fits well with the sucide bombers and an over-reaction of a nation. I have never been to the Middle East and seen the mentality of the muslims over their but I have a friend who is arab and who is from the middle east that helps me sometimes with my math homework. It would seem that he is not this kind of person. But I could be wrong. People can put on a good front. The mentality of the Middle East arabs can be questionable but I don't think we should rush to demonize or categorize a group of people or nations as "terrorists" and make them sub-human. You have bad people everywhere you go including bad americans and bad russians. So it would be unfair of me to judge all russians because as bad just because I met one bad russian and it would be unfair of you to judge all americans as bad just because you met a few bad americans. I know for sure the muslims I dealt with in the Balkans were anything but "terrorists" or sucide bombers and all of them that I met seem to love americans. They did not fit the character that people who would wish to demonize muslims as a whole would like them to be percieved. We don't need witch hunts. Witch hunts have a tendency to create more problems than solutions and also have the tendency of violating the rights of innocent people while the real bad guys get away.

---

"The greatest distance between people is not space but culture."
-Jamake Highwater

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChillinVillian: Heh well I think we cannot allow ourselves to demonize and categorize a particular group of people as "terrorists." The sucide bombers from what I have seen on TV are young people who are usually more easily conned, manipulted into becoming sucide bombers and when Americans or Isrealies alike become victims of sucide bombings both react with "OHH well you know they are ALL terrorists, none of them value human life...we should kill them ALL.... they are sub-human...they are not one of 'us'..." one of the tricks to get people to do evil is to make them to believe they are doing good while in reality they are doing evil and that fits well with the sucide bombers and an over-reaction of a nation. I have never been to the Middle East and seen the mentality of the muslims over their but I have a friend who is arab and who is from the middle east that helps me sometimes with my math homework. It would seem that he is not this kind of person. But I could be wrong. People can put on a good front. The mentality of the Middle East arabs can be questionable but I don't think we should rush to demonize or categorize a group of people or nations as "terrorists" and make them sub-human. You have bad people everywhere you go including bad americans and bad russians. So it would be unfair of me to judge all russians because as bad just because I met one bad russian and it would be unfair of you to judge all americans as bad just because you met a few bad americans. I know for sure the muslims I dealt with in the Balkans were anything but "terrorists" or sucide bombers and all of them that I met seem to love americans. They did not fit the character that people who would wish to demonize muslims as a whole would like them to be percieved. We don't need witch hunts. Witch hunts have a tendency to create more problems than solutions and also have the tendency of violating the rights of innocent people while the real bad guys get away.

---

Ok, looks like English is predominant here, on Russian forum. Anyways, I'll try to express myself :-) I totally agree that PROBABLY not all arabs are terrorists. But let's look at it from a different perspective. Would you agree that so far all terrorists - are ARABS? :-) This conclusion sure as hell makes things simpler. We're not talking about "bad Russians" anymore, just cause Russians don't tend to blow up buildings. :-) Now, have you heard anything from muslim community of, say, USA, saying "Goddamn Muhhammed! We're so f*ing sorry!!! It's not Islam that makes blowing up buildings holy! It's a bunch of idiots running around who DO NOT understand Islam!!!!!". I haven't! On the contrary, I see arabs around the world cheering!!! Thinking about all of the above, would you agree that it's easier to beleive that all arabs are evil rather than, say, all Russians are?

---

Well, I thought the rules said to post in the language that the topic was started in on this forum. Now as far as Arabs celebrating I can tell you for sure their were alot of non-Arabs as well celebrating the deaths of 3,000 americans as well. So let's be fair. Should be label the group of non-arabs as a whole, categorically, who sickeningly celebrated the deaths of 3,000 americans as "terrorists" as well?

---

"The greatest distance between people is not space but culture."
-Jamake Highwater

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChillinVillian: Well, I thought the rules said to post in the language that the topic was started in on this forum. Now as far as Arabs celebrating I can tell you for sure their were alot of non-Arabs as well celebrating the deaths of 3,000 americans as well. So let's be fair. Should be label the group of non-arabs as a whole, categorically, who sickeningly celebrated the deaths of 3,000 americans as "terrorists" as well?

---

Heh. My answer is YES!!! We should! And we better! Let me ask you something. Let's remember history. In particular - WW2. Would you agree that that war was "patriotic" from the Russian point of view? Hey, I bet there were TONS of Germans that did not support invasion, right? Do you think it was proper to think about those innocent lives while bombing Hamburg, for example (where Brits didn't leave a stone!!!)? How about Italy or Japan? They were not exactly "Germans" but we didn't care, right?Or would it be better to lay a few thousand troops in Japan to get peace? I personally think that it's better to deal with the enemy while the little evil baby is in the crib. It saves lives. American lives in this particular case. If someone celebrates deaths of Americans - they are f*ing enemy!!! As simple as that! Same thing if someone would be celebrating deaths of Russians - they would be enemies of Russia! If the country doesn't want war and wants to avoid civilian casualties - give us those suckers! That's all what it comes to, right? But if some government ALLOWS this kind of eiphoria to go on - it makes this government the enemy, is this so hard to see? Unfortunatelly we do not live in the world where we can say "I don't care!!! Leave me alone!!!!!". And sometimes people suffer because they are either stupid or weak. But this is always true in a fight - whoever is stronger - wins.

---

just a small history lesson... let's go back, say, 20 years... back than americans were taught that russians are evil and will drop nuclear bombs on american cities.. and guess what, in ussr we were taught that americans are monsters who kill people for profit all over the world.... propaganda is a very powerful thing... so when we say that arabs/muslims are terrorists we are are wrong... yes, most of the world terrorists are muslim (not all - remember columbia, spain, uk, our own domestic terrorists, even some jews...), most muslims are not terrorists... and i think it would be a terrible mistake to kill thousands of inocent people just to , maybe, get one terrorists... cia is more that capable to remove sadam from power (remember panama, where military was much stronger then the current iraqi army) w/o any bloodshed... lyosha ****************** Knowing what thou knowest not is in a sense omniscience ****************** http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76

---

lyosha
******************
What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by snake: just a small history lesson... let's go back, say, 20 years... back than americans were taught that russians are evil and will drop nuclear bombs on american cities.. and guess what, in ussr we were taught that americans are monsters who kill people for profit all over the world.... propaganda is a very powerful thing... so when we say that arabs/muslims are terrorists we are are wrong... yes, most of the world terrorists are muslim (not all - remember columbia, spain, uk, our own domestic terrorists, even some jews...), most muslims are not terrorists... and i think it would be a terrible mistake to kill thousands of inocent people just to , maybe, get one terrorists... cia is more that capable to remove sadam from power (remember panama, where military was much stronger then the current iraqi army) w/o any bloodshed... lyosha ****************** Knowing what thou knowest not is in a sense omniscience ****************** http://www.mindspring.com/~snake76

---

As always I disagree. The point is that one terrorist can kill a bunch of OUR people (Americans, Russians, whatever). I would sucrifice 10000 their lives for a life of my kid (or any Russian kid, for that matter!), no question!!! Which brings us again to the same question: are all lives equal? :-) No. Show me a person who would say "It's better for my Mom to die for saving my friend's mom!". And we are not talking about friends here. Just some unknown people.

---

Well snake and I agree. Leaders like for the people to fall into the trap of demonizing "enemies" and supposed "terrorists." During the American Revolutionary War...the colonists were "terrorists." When the Morrocans fought against French colonialization of their country they were labeled "terrorists" by the French government. So the question is...just what exactly is a "terrorist." To me, a terrorist is somebody who targets innocent civilians to coherce government policy. A freedom fighter is somebody who targets armed soldiers who have oppressed their country. Seems to me when the Morrocans were fighting french soldiers in the streets they were labeled "terrorists" somehow. So the word "terrorist" can be used to blur the world view of a nation's population towards another nation's or group of people's population. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But to me real freedom fighters have the support of their local population and do not harm civilians and have the high moral ground against their oppressors. Terrorists do not distinguish between civilians and soldiers alike. But then again in conflicts maybe we all fit the definition of terrorist because of our lack of common sense and not using our brains. Some things are worth fighting for...but sometimes the better man can find a better way. Heh snake mentioned domestic terrorists here in this country. Under current American laws...surely Thomas Jefferson would be labeled a terrorist today. Under the Alien and Seditions Act that was passed during World War I when america was becoming involved in Europe, it was made a Federal Crime for a group to advocate through the use of force the overthrow of the Federal Government(though their are heavily armed militia groups that do advocate the overthrow the US government inside the US in defiance of this law). This curious repeal of Former President Thomas Jefferson's insistance that it is our OBLIGATION to revolt and overthrow a government that is out of control even through the use of force. Thus today, Thomas Jefferson would be a "terrorist." Yet when we study in our history books we see Thomas Jefferson as an american hero(which I think he is and I certainly don't see him as a "terrorist"). Would you guys see Thomas Jefferson as a "terrorist?" What do you guys think is a terrorist? "Those who expect to be ignorant and free, expect what never was and never will be" -Thomas Jefferson

---

"The greatest distance between people is not space but culture."
-Jamake Highwater

quote:

---

Originally posted by stinger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChillinVillian: Well, I thought the rules said to post in the language that the topic was started in on this forum. Now as far as Arabs celebrating I can tell you for sure their were alot of non-Arabs as well celebrating the deaths of 3,000 americans as well. So let's be fair. Should be label the group of non-arabs as a whole, categorically, who sickeningly celebrated the deaths of 3,000 americans as "terrorists" as well?

---

Heh. My answer is YES!!! We should! And we better! Let me ask you something. Let's remember history. In particular - WW2. Would you agree that that war was "patriotic" from the Russian point of view? Hey, I bet there were TONS of Germans that did not support invasion, right? Do you think it was proper to think about those innocent lives while bombing Hamburg, for example (where Brits didn't leave a stone!!!)? How about Italy or Japan? They were not exactly "Germans" but we didn't care, right?Or would it be better to lay a few thousand troops in Japan to get peace? I personally think that it's better to deal with the enemy while the little evil baby is in the crib. It saves lives. American lives in this particular case. If someone celebrates deaths of Americans - they are f*ing enemy!!! As simple as that! Same thing if someone would be celebrating deaths of Russians - they would be enemies of Russia! If the country doesn't want war and wants to avoid civilian casualties - give us those suckers! That's all what it comes to, right? But if some government ALLOWS this kind of eiphoria to go on - it makes this government the enemy, is this so hard to see? Unfortunatelly we do not live in the world where we can say "I don't care!!! Leave me alone!!!!!". And sometimes people suffer because they are either stupid or weak. But this is always true in a fight - whoever is stronger - wins.

---

I agree with this post. "...Нашу песню не задушишь, не убьешь..."

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....