Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Target Killing

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 1:08:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not sure what target killing is, but I think it is moral and generally unnecessary, as long as the target is guilty (which is the dangerous part).
My work here is, finally, done.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:00:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 1:08:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Not sure what target killing is, but I think it is moral and generally unnecessary, as long as the target is guilty (which is the dangerous part).

State sponsor assassination. Used extensively in the US and Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:32:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's really bad when other countries do it, but when the US does it it's ok because of US exceptionalism and it's ok when Israel does it because the Jews are Gods chosen people. If non-white people do it it's terrorism.

I've pretty well summed up Americas position on it haven't I?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:34:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:32:15 AM, lewis20 wrote:
It's really bad when other countries do it, but when the US does it it's ok because of US exceptionalism.

I've pretty well summed up Americas position on it haven't I?

That is everyone's position. Just C/P America with the organization/country.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:39:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:34:43 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:32:15 AM, lewis20 wrote:
It's really bad when other countries do it, but when the US does it it's ok because of US exceptionalism.

I've pretty well summed up Americas position on it haven't I?

That is everyone's position. Just C/P America with the organization/country.

Not everyone, most countries don't participate in targeted killings as they see it for what it is, state sponsored terrorism.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:44:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:39:47 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:34:43 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:32:15 AM, lewis20 wrote:
It's really bad when other countries do it, but when the US does it it's ok because of US exceptionalism.

I've pretty well summed up Americas position on it haven't I?

That is everyone's position. Just C/P America with the organization/country.

Not everyone, most countries don't participate in targeted killings as they see it for what it is, state sponsored terrorism.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:26:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:44:15 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:39:47 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:34:43 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:32:15 AM, lewis20 wrote:
It's really bad when other countries do it, but when the US does it it's ok because of US exceptionalism.

I've pretty well summed up Americas position on it haven't I?

That is everyone's position. Just C/P America with the organization/country.

Not everyone, most countries don't participate in targeted killings as they see it for what it is, state sponsored terrorism.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

So I assumed you believe it necessary, what about morality? Do you think it is the right thing to assassinate individual who post a threat to the state too?

And no I do not seek to judge your value base on that, just curious how do you think.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 12:34:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Immoral, but in some cases it is necessary. For instance, given the opportunity, it would be necessary to murder Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and various other peoples. But it would not be necessarily moral.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 12:48:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Moral or Unmoral - Depends on the reason for the target

Necessary or Unnecessary - ^
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 1:49:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 4:00:51 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/9/2013 1:08:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Not sure what target killing is, but I think it is moral and generally unnecessary, as long as the target is guilty (which is the dangerous part).

State sponsor assassination. Used extensively in the US and Israel.

That's what I thought. My answer holds.
It is moral if the reasons are valid, and necessary if time is of the essence.
It is immoral if the reasons are trivial or simply because a government doesn't like a person, and unnecessary if there is no immenent or foreseeable subsequent threat that would rule out a capture and trial.
My work here is, finally, done.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 2:26:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I say immoral and unecessary
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 2:31:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Moral through the doctrine of double effect and necessary given the destructive capacity certain people can foster within organizations.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:07:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 12:48:09 PM, THEVIRUS wrote:
Moral or Unmoral - Depends on the reason for the target

Necessary or Unnecessary - ^

My thoughts exactly.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:10:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 1:04:04 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
is immoral but necessary,

moral and necessary,

moral but not necessary, or

immoral and unnecessary?

We're ignoring signature strikes, right? I'm 99% again those.

I'd like to propose a slightly different criteria:

Unhelpful but necessary
helpfull and necessary
helpful but not necessary
unhelpful and unnecessary

I would like to choose the first. Targeted killings (if done while actually following DoD guidelines) are the only feasible way to fight an enemy when sovereign concerns make ground invasion impossible and the terrain makes capture all but impossible.

However, there is a HUGE drawback. Namely, we're psychologically terrifying and terrorizing all the Pakistanis and Afghans who live with drones over them 24/7 firing missiles into buildings.

The Pakistani people are in favor of blowing up terrorists with drones (this holds true even in tribal areas), but not drones hovering over their houses 24/67 armed with Hellfire Missiles.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:17:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:10:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/9/2013 1:04:04 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
is immoral but necessary,

moral and necessary,

moral but not necessary, or

immoral and unnecessary?

We're ignoring signature strikes, right? I'm 99% again those.

I'd like to propose a slightly different criteria:

Unhelpful but necessary
helpfull and necessary
helpful but not necessary
unhelpful and unnecessary

I would like to choose the first. Targeted killings (if done while actually following DoD guidelines) are the only feasible way to fight an enemy when sovereign concerns make ground invasion impossible and the terrain makes capture all but impossible.

However, there is a HUGE drawback. Namely, we're psychologically terrifying and terrorizing all the Pakistanis and Afghans who live with drones over them 24/7 firing missiles into buildings.

The Pakistani people are in favor of blowing up terrorists with drones (this holds true even in tribal areas), but not drones hovering over their houses 24/67 armed with Hellfire Missiles.

I agree with the last sentence
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:25:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:17:37 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:10:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/9/2013 1:04:04 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
is immoral but necessary,

moral and necessary,

moral but not necessary, or

immoral and unnecessary?

We're ignoring signature strikes, right? I'm 99% again those.

I'd like to propose a slightly different criteria:

Unhelpful but necessary
helpfull and necessary
helpful but not necessary
unhelpful and unnecessary

I would like to choose the first. Targeted killings (if done while actually following DoD guidelines) are the only feasible way to fight an enemy when sovereign concerns make ground invasion impossible and the terrain makes capture all but impossible.

However, there is a HUGE drawback. Namely, we're psychologically terrifying and terrorizing all the Pakistanis and Afghans who live with drones over them 24/7 firing missiles into buildings.

The Pakistani people are in favor of blowing up terrorists with drones (this holds true even in tribal areas), but not drones hovering over their houses 24/67 armed with Hellfire Missiles.

I agree with the last sentence

If we made guidelines more strict and started using only high altitude drones for surveillance, that'd go a long in convincing me as well. For instance, you don't get to count someone as a militant just because they're male and standing next to the target.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 3:33:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:25:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:17:37 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:10:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/9/2013 1:04:04 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
is immoral but necessary,

moral and necessary,

moral but not necessary, or

immoral and unnecessary?

We're ignoring signature strikes, right? I'm 99% again those.

I'd like to propose a slightly different criteria:

Unhelpful but necessary
helpfull and necessary
helpful but not necessary
unhelpful and unnecessary

I would like to choose the first. Targeted killings (if done while actually following DoD guidelines) are the only feasible way to fight an enemy when sovereign concerns make ground invasion impossible and the terrain makes capture all but impossible.

However, there is a HUGE drawback. Namely, we're psychologically terrifying and terrorizing all the Pakistanis and Afghans who live with drones over them 24/7 firing missiles into buildings.

The Pakistani people are in favor of blowing up terrorists with drones (this holds true even in tribal areas), but not drones hovering over their houses 24/67 armed with Hellfire Missiles.

I agree with the last sentence

If we made guidelines more strict and started using only high altitude drones for surveillance, that'd go a long in convincing me as well. For instance, you don't get to count someone as a militant just because they're male and standing next to the target.

exactly
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:40:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 12:34:10 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Immoral, but in some cases it is necessary. For instance, given the opportunity, it would be necessary to murder Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and various other peoples. But it would not be necessarily moral.

Don't equate Mussolini with Stalin and Hitler- he was not anymore a bad person than Hugo Chavez was a bad person.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 4:51:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 3:33:49 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:25:48 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:17:37 PM, cybertron1998 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 3:10:37 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/9/2013 1:04:04 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
is immoral but necessary,

moral and necessary,

moral but not necessary, or

immoral and unnecessary?

We're ignoring signature strikes, right? I'm 99% again those.

I'd like to propose a slightly different criteria:

Unhelpful but necessary
helpfull and necessary
helpful but not necessary
unhelpful and unnecessary

I would like to choose the first. Targeted killings (if done while actually following DoD guidelines) are the only feasible way to fight an enemy when sovereign concerns make ground invasion impossible and the terrain makes capture all but impossible.

However, there is a HUGE drawback. Namely, we're psychologically terrifying and terrorizing all the Pakistanis and Afghans who live with drones over them 24/7 firing missiles into buildings.

The Pakistani people are in favor of blowing up terrorists with drones (this holds true even in tribal areas), but not drones hovering over their houses 24/67 armed with Hellfire Missiles.

I agree with the last sentence

If we made guidelines more strict and started using only high altitude drones for surveillance, that'd go a long in convincing me as well. For instance, you don't get to count someone as a militant just because they're male and standing next to the target.

exactly

While some of Obama's earlier moves made me decide to be neutral/not endorse him, I'm actively against him since I personally investigated how he ran the drone program (note: I am not saying the drone program itself is bad).

Of course, in order for that to have any effect on my voting, the GOP needs to produce a candidate I dislike less.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 5:50:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 11:26:00 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:44:15 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:39:47 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:34:43 AM, OberHerr wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:32:15 AM, lewis20 wrote:
It's really bad when other countries do it, but when the US does it it's ok because of US exceptionalism.

I've pretty well summed up Americas position on it haven't I?

That is everyone's position. Just C/P America with the organization/country.

Not everyone, most countries don't participate in targeted killings as they see it for what it is, state sponsored terrorism.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

So I assumed you believe it necessary, what about morality? Do you think it is the right thing to assassinate individual who post a threat to the state too?

And no I do not seek to judge your value base on that, just curious how do you think.

I hold the position that I'm fine with it, assumingn there is 1) good reason and 2) the killing is precise.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 9:52:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 5:50:11 PM, OberHerr wrote:
I hold the position that I'm fine with it, assumingn there is 1) good reason and 2) the killing is precise.

That's the whole argument against it as it stands now, you want due process to judge if there's good reason and our recent targeted killings have been anything but precise.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 10:49:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 4:40:53 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/9/2013 12:34:10 PM, muzebreak wrote:
Immoral, but in some cases it is necessary. For instance, given the opportunity, it would be necessary to murder Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and various other peoples. But it would not be necessarily moral.

Don't equate Mussolini with Stalin and Hitler- he was not anymore a bad person than Hugo Chavez was a bad person.

My thought exactly :D
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 11:02:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You know as a non-US my thought is that it is moral but unnecessary. If the individual is posting threat against the state, then it is in the best interest of the state and people who depend on it to see those man demise.

Suppose if a person is planning to plant a bomb in your public building with the intention of harming your citizen. I think it is actually a state duty to have the man killed . Let him go to fight another day is in fact immoral because you fail to use the power you borrow from the people to protect their security. If the court condemned a prisoner to death, killing him is good, give him mercy is bad.

However, I am not fully convinced that assassination is the most effective way of doing it. If you use that exact amount you invested in drone program to build alliance and rely on Interpol or local intelligent agency to do the hard job, that should work too and cause as mush trouble as you face right now.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 11:10:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you're killing a target as part of a just war, and they are going to keep hurting people and you can't capture them, it may be moral and necessary.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 12:53:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/10/2013 11:10:57 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
If you're killing a target as part of a just war, and they are going to keep hurting people and you can't capture them, it may be moral and necessary.

In my opinion, the target killing even take priority above the justification of war. If you are Hitler, would it be moral to spare any "freedom fighter" you know full well that is planning to kill the citizen of your nation?

I thought state sponsor assassination against proven dangerous individual or convict is always just, clearly in black and white to the point of not doing so can be considered wrong.