News Is Ayman al-Zawahiri Dead?

  • Thread starter Thread starter scott1
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A U.S. missile strike in Pakistan aimed at al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri reportedly missed its target, resulting in the deaths of at least 18 civilians, which has sparked outrage among Pakistani officials. The Pakistani government condemned the attack, asserting that it was based on false intelligence and vowing to prevent future incidents. Critics argue that such strikes demonstrate a reckless disregard for human life, while some defend the action as justified collateral damage in the fight against terrorism. The incident has intensified scrutiny of U.S. military operations in Pakistan and raised questions about the effectiveness of targeting high-profile terrorists. The ongoing conflict highlights the complexities and moral dilemmas surrounding military actions in civilian areas.
scott1
Messages
350
Reaction score
1
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1504096
Today, according to Pakistani military sources, U.S. aircraft attacked a compound known to be frequented by high level al Qaeda operatives. Pakistani officials tell ABC News that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, may have been among them.
This good news now Osama bin laden's second in comand officer and his doctor is(might be) dead
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Again?...[/color]
 
rachmaninoff said:
Again?...[/color]
Apparently not. Just another 18 innocent civilians dead... Killed by that well known state sponsored international terrorist group the CIA. :rolleyes:

Zawahiri 'not hit by US missile'

Zawahiri has been in hiding since 2001
The deputy leader of al-Qaeda was not in a Pakistani village near the Afghan border which was hit in an apparent missile attack, Pakistan officials say.
The unnamed officials said the attack - in which at least 18 people were killed - was based on "false information".
Quoting intelligence sources, US media said it was a CIA raid. The US military says it is not aware of any operations taking place in the Bajaur tribal area.

Pakistan's information minister condemned the attack.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told a news conference the US ambassador would be summoned to explain.

The Pakistani government wanted "to assure the people we will not allow such incidents to reoccur", Mr Ahmed said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4612400.stm
 
CIA airstrike missed again. What a surprise. How many Canadians died in Afghanastan because of an overzealous U.S. pilot? Now how many civilians died?
 
Treadstone 71 said:
CIA airstrike missed again. What a surprise. How many Canadians died in Afghanastan because of an overzealous U.S. pilot? Now how many civilians died?
I never herd of anything about candians dieing in afghanstain.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/friendlyfire/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I guess this just proves the old adage - "never invite a terrorist to dinner: even if he doesn't show up, you still may end up dead."
 
Also, don't be a kid living within 200 meters of a terrorist sympathizer. Anything that happens is your own fault.
 
rachmaninoff said:
Also, don't be a kid living within 200 meters of a terrorist sympathizer. Anything that happens is your own fault.
Correction: your parents' fault.
 
  • #10
Well, I guess this just proves the old adage - "never invite a terrorist to dinner: even if he doesn't show up, you still may end up dead."

Seems to be more the case of recklessness or perhaps callous disregard for human life on the part of the Bush Administration and perhaps the US military.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060115/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack

Pakistani intelligence officials said the reported target, al-Qaida No. 2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri, had been invited to the attacked village for a dinner marking a Muslim festival on the night of the missile strike but he failed to show up.

With the government's alliance in the U.S.-led war on international terror groups already unpopular in this Muslim country, the deaths of at least 17 people in Friday's attack have stoked widespread anger.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
I'm not following - it says that as many as 11 of them were foreigners and al-Zawahri sent a bunch of his personnel to the dinner party instead of going himself. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-15-pakistan-attack_x.htm
I don't know for sure that all 17 killed were at the dinner-party, but anyone killed at the dinner party were either terrorists, terrorist sympathizers (which is just another word for "accomplices") or their children.

Such a strike - even if the primary target, al-Zawahri, wasn't killed, is still both justified and considered a success.

For the children, there is a special place in hell for their parents - right next to the parents of the Columbine shooters ('I didn't know he had all those guns...' :rolleyes: ) and the parents of those two teenage twin girls who are looking for a career in racist folk-music.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Even if individual members of groups are killed, this does not mean that the group will be disbanded or stop operating. It is short-sighted to analyse conflict situations in terms of leaders and to believe that the murder of specific leaders will end this conflict: dead leaders will likely be replaced by others.
 
  • #13
scott1 said:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1504096
This good news now Osama bin laden's second in comand officer and his doctor is(might be) dead

ha.. UBL has not been in control of any terror activities in quite some time, and prior to that, he really was not the kind of puppet master that the press and the admin made him out to be (he trained and recruited, and financed, but the "feet on the ground" are the ones that came up with the jobs (though Sept. 11 was a UBL original as sighted in the notebooks found in afghanistan.)
 
  • #14
I'm not following - it says that as many as 11 of them were foreigners and al-Zawahri sent a bunch of his personnel to the dinner party instead of going himself. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...n-attack_x.htm
I don't know for sure that all 17 killed were at the dinner-party, but anyone killed at the dinner party were either terrorists, terrorist sympathizers (which is just another word for "accomplices") or their children.

Such a strike - even if the primary target, al-Zawahri, wasn't killed, is still both justified and considered a success.

For the children, there is a special place in hell for their parents - right next to the parents of the Columbine shooters ('I didn't know he had all those guns...' ) and the parents of those two teenage twin girls who are looking for a career in racist folk-music.

An Attack on Women and Children is never justified! What is the world coming to? There is a worse place in Hell for the people who Murder children!
 
  • #15
There's a place in hell for people who murder children, and a place for people who murder people who murder children, and a place for people who murder people who murder people who murder children, ad infinitum.
 
  • #16
Treadstone 71 said:
There's a place in hell for people who murder children, and a place for people who murder people who murder children, and a place for people who murder people who murder people who murder children, ad infinitum.
And hopefully a nice warm place for those sickos who condone such murders too.

One rather obvious problem with the dinner party cover story being circulated is that at least 3 separate buildings were hit a few hundred yards apart. Is there some strange custom I am unaware of whereby a different course is served in each house? Or does it simply portray a scatter gun approach with a total disregard for human life? :rolleyes:
 
  • #17
Anttech said:
An Attack on Women and Children is never justified! What is the world coming to? There is a worse place in Hell for the people who Murder children!
The attack was not "on" women and children, the attack was on the terrorists who were at the dinner party. The fact that the women and children were around the terrorists is the fault of whoever held the dinner party and as a result, they, not the US, are the murderers. And the accomplices would be the parents of any children who were in neigboring residences for not protecting their children from the terrorists they were living near.

This issue works exactly the same as international law regarding the use of human shields and the use of civilians as cannon-fodder (what Saddam's troops did during the war - force civilians to walk toward American positions, forcing the American troops to kill the civilians).

The attack is reported to have killed a very high-end member of Al Qaeda, and if that is correct, that makes it a highly successful attack. Any women or children killed are, then, his last victims.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Art said:
One rather obvious problem with the dinner party cover story being circulated is that at least 3 separate buildings were hit a few hundred yards apart. Is there some strange custom I am unaware of whereby a different course is served in each house? Or does it simply portray a scatter gun approach...
Given the accuracy of the weapons used, it can be assumed that the 3 buildings were hit on purpose. What this implies to me is that they weren't sure which building they would be in.
...with a total disregard for human life? :rolleyes:
Hardly. Collateral damage is a reality in any armed conflict and must be weighed against the importance of the target. In this case, killing a man who had a hand in the murder of thousands of people - and would kill more if allowed to - makes it a fair trade.

And need I point out that our enemies in this conflict weigh such issues backwards? Al Qaeda's attacks are, for the most part, specifically calculated to maximize civilian deaths.
 
  • #19
The attack was not "on" women and children, the attack was on the terrorists who were at the dinner party. The fact that the women and children were around the terrorists is the fault of whoever held the dinner party and as a result, they, not the US, are the murderers. And the accomplices would be the parents of any children who were in neigboring residences for not protecting their children from the terrorists they were living near.

This is your opinion. Also you are assuming that the people who held the dinner party knew the people around them were "terrorists"

Anyway I am happy at least the pakistain government won't be allowing the US to carry out these sort of attacks again!

Hardly. Collateral damage is a reality in any armed conflict and must be weighed against the importance of the target.
I didnt realize that the US we at war with the Pakistain civilan populus.
 
  • #20
... reading all this and what we're left with are the same "old" rationalizations, which enable both sides (or whatever side) the ability to justify whatever action - there is always some 'link' which makes any action justifiable to someone wearing the appropriately tuned goggles. At least as long as short term solutions are the only way to pursue a solution.
 
  • #21
It seems not unlikely that the report of 3 dead senior al-Qaida figures is simply propaganda by the Pakistani gov't to try and quell the protests in Pakistan seeing as how no bodies, body parts or even blood have been recovered to allow DNA testing.
 
  • #22
russ_watters said:
Collateral damage is a reality in any armed conflict and must be weighed against the importance of the target. In this case, killing a man who had a hand in the murder of thousands of people - and would kill more if allowed to - makes it a fair trade.
Interesting viewpoint. So on that basis to avoid being labelled a hypocrite you must consider the victims of 9/11 to be not victims of terrorism but justifiable 'collateral damage'. Afterall the attacks were against major economic and military targets and so when as you suggest this is "weighed against the importance of the target" do you thing the 3000 dead civilians were an acceptable cost in human life or do Pakistanis, Iraqis and other foreigners lives have less value than an american's in your eyes?? And how about your own family? What value do you put on that? If a terrorist was living near you and the CIA took him and the neighborhood out including your family would that be acceptable to you??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Anttech said:
This is your opinion.
Not my opinion, the opinion of people who write law. I've seen people in here who seem genuinely confused as to why the US isn't being pursued in the UN for war crimes. That's why: you are misunderstanding how these things work.

The law on this is pretty straightforward and it doesn't just apply in war: if you put yourself or someone else in a situation that is dangerous and they die - even if you didn't pull the trigger - you are responsible because you put them in that situation. Thats how it works with hostage-takers and shootouts with police, for example.
Also you are assuming that the people who held the dinner party knew the people around them were "terrorists"
Huh? :confused: The people who held the party invited the terrorists!
Anyway I am happy at least the pakistain government won't be allowing the US to carry out these sort of attacks again!
Right - just like they didn't allow us to carry out this one. :rolleyes:
I didnt realize that the US we at war with the Pakistain civilan populus.
Look up the definition of the term "collateral damage" and try that comment again: it has nothing at all to do with what I said. Edit: that is so close to being precisely opposite what I said in my post, I have a hard time accepting that that wasn't a purposeful mischaracterization. If you want to discuss this, please correct it. If you just want to mindlessly bash the US without actually analyzing the actions, let me know and I'll leave you to it.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
PerennialII said:
... reading all this and what we're left with are the same "old" rationalizations, which enable both sides (or whatever side) the ability to justify whatever action - there is always some 'link' which makes any action justifiable to someone wearing the appropriately tuned goggles. At least as long as short term solutions are the only way to pursue a solution.
There is a "right" and "wrong" way to view this: the right way is in accordance with the way the law works and the wrong way is through the goggles of knee-jerk US-hating.
 
  • #25
Art, the first sentence of your post is so far off what I actually said, I won't even bother responding. If you want a response, rewrite it in a way that isn't purposely mischaracterizing what I said. You are trolling.

For the second part, simply flip the scenario over and see if it still works. Clearly, it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
russ_watters said:
Hardly. Collateral damage is a reality in any armed conflict and must be weighed against the importance of the target. In this case, killing a man who had a hand in the murder of thousands of people - and would kill more if allowed to - makes it a fair trade.

When your family becomes "collateral damage", let's see if you still uphold that point of view.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
The attack was not "on" women and children, the attack was on the terrorists who were at the dinner party. The fact that the women and children were around the terrorists is the fault of whoever held the dinner party and as a result, they, not the US, are the murderers. And the accomplices would be the parents of any children who were in neigboring residences for not protecting their children from the terrorists they were living near.
This issue works exactly the same as international law regarding the use of human shields and the use of civilians as cannon-fodder (what Saddam's troops did during the war - force civilians to walk toward American positions, forcing the American troops to kill the civilians).
The attack is reported to have killed a very high-end member of Al Qaeda, and if that is correct, that makes it a highly successful attack. Any women or children killed are, then, his last victims.

there is something to be said about attempting to not kill innocent people.

There was no attempt here, and that is WHY the US is hated by, as our government considers them, "The Dirt People".

To the Bush admin, innocent brown skin people are not worth mitigating the damage over.
 
  • #28
russ_watters said:
There is a "right" and "wrong" way to view this: the right way is in accordance with the way the law works and the wrong way is through the goggles of knee-jerk US-hating.

So Terrorists should be dealt with as if they are criminals?

I thought Conservatives saw them as a military force.

Right and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal is all determined by the victor of an armed conflict. If we are indeed at war with these people over IDEAS, then why are their actions any more illegal and criminal than what we have done to them?
 
  • #29
russ_watters said:
Art, the first sentence of your post is so far off what I actually said, I won't even bother responding. If you want a response, rewrite it in a way that isn't purposely mischaracterizing what I said. You are trolling.
For the second part, simply flip the scenario over and see if it still works. Clearly, it doesn't.

I don't see him mischaracterizing your statement. I see that he found a flaw in your reasoning. Absolutism is not a workable philosophy. When you deal in absolutes, you get caught in contradictions.

If those people were collateral damage on an attack to kill enemies of the US, then the 3000 dead in the WTC are the same to the terrorists.

think about that. You justify the deaths of innocents by claiming righteous motivations. That is exactly what the terrorists did to justify the deaths of the 3000 innocent people on 9/11. They are no more evil than the US.
 
  • #30
russ_watters said:
There is a "right" and "wrong" way to view this: the right way is in accordance with the way the law works and the wrong way is through the goggles of knee-jerk US-hating.
Can only resonate ComputerGeek and say, when both sides can easily base themselves above the law (there doesn't seem to be any sort of system of laws and/or regulations followed strictly in this conflict (but rather when it fits) ... am not saying it's anything unusual in these sorts of conflicts) and create their own ethical standards (along the lines "I'm right and you're wrong"), both are able to continue & "justify" their actions without a glitch.
 
  • #31
This is all long distance speculation. The coverage of these events shifts, and blame shifts, etc. In that part of the world, women and children have no rights, and work as household servants, exclusively. It is alleged that four bodies were taken away, and hidden.

What if OBL was killed and the tape released today is a tape that was already going to be released for the feast day, and has now been released just after his death?
 
  • #32
Dayle Record said:
This is all long distance speculation. The coverage of these events shifts, and blame shifts, etc. In that part of the world, women and children have no rights, and work as household servants, exclusively. It is alleged that four bodies were taken away, and hidden.
What if OBL was killed and the tape released today is a tape that was already going to be released for the feast day, and has now been released just after his death?

So... a culture is evil because they do not have the same values as we superior westerners?

What is right for us is not right for them. that is a fact, it is not good or evil.
 
  • #33
russ_watters said:
Art, the first sentence of your post is so far off what I actually said, I won't even bother responding. If you want a response, rewrite it in a way that isn't purposely mischaracterizing what I said. You are trolling.
For the second part, simply flip the scenario over and see if it still works. Clearly, it doesn't.
Tut tut Russ - I already answered this post but you have deleted my response without any reason given, presumably as it exposed the weakness in your rationale.

I thought moderators were here to keep discussions civil - not to censor posts which highlight the weakness of their arguments?? For an advocate of democracy you appear to practice a very totalitarian attitude to free speech.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Art said:
Tut tut Russ - I already answered this post but you have deleted my response without any reason given, presumably as it exposed the weakness in your rationale.
I thought moderators were here to keep discussions civil - not to censor posts which highlight the weakness of their arguments?? For an advocate of democracy you appear to practice a very totalitarian attitude to free speech.

Aggreed.. surely being a forum 'mentor' should mean that you are here as a catalyst to debate, not to destroy opposing opinions.. am I right?
 
  • #35
The problem with war, is that war is started by, and perpetuated by men. Eighty percent of the casualties of war are women and children. In a culture such as the Pashtun, Taliban, and mountain tribes of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, women and children have no say, and make no policy. They will always be the casualties of the wars their men make. They have no choice whether or not foreign fighters come to dinner, and they will die in war due to proximity.

If at my house, I hosted a team of foreign insurgents fed and sheltered them, and sent them off to bomb my city, then I would also die in an assault on my house, or I would never see the light of day again, once captured. I doubt that my neighborhood would be bombed by the government even though it is solidly democratic. I have seen a fully armed swat team here, however four houses away, in broad daylight.

All this crying out about deaths in the houses is ridiculous. In the houses, the guns, and hand held rocket launchers sit along the walls at dinner time. War is just a more personal experience for villagers that support Osama.

Rights for women and children is not just an attitude of "Western Superiority", There is a direct connection to women's rights, and the well being of any society. Do some homework, the societies with the worst poverty, and hopeless living conditions, have historically poor treatment and disenfranchisement of women.

The only reason that this might not hold true in the oil rich states, is the incredible income from oil.

The bodies were rushed off so quickly, that certainly someone very important passed on.
 
  • #36
Dayle Record said:
The problem with war, is that war is started by, and perpetuated by men. Eighty percent of the casualties of war are women and children. In a culture such as the Pashtun, Taliban, and mountain tribes of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, women and children have no say, and make no policy. They will always be the casualties of the wars their men make. They have no choice whether or not foreign fighters come to dinner, and they will die in war due to proximity.
If at my house, I hosted a team of foreign insurgents fed and sheltered them, and sent them off to bomb my city, then I would also die in an assault on my house, or I would never see the light of day again, once captured. I doubt that my neighborhood would be bombed by the government even though it is solidly democratic. I have seen a fully armed swat team here, however four houses away, in broad daylight.
All this crying out about deaths in the houses is ridiculous. In the houses, the guns, and hand held rocket launchers sit along the walls at dinner time. War is just a more personal experience for villagers that support Osama.
Rights for women and children is not just an attitude of "Western Superiority", There is a direct connection to women's rights, and the well being of any society. Do some homework, the societies with the worst poverty, and hopeless living conditions, have historically poor treatment and disenfranchisement of women.
The only reason that this might not hold true in the oil rich states, is the incredible income from oil.
The bodies were rushed off so quickly, that certainly someone very important passed on.
It still does not make them EVIL and in need to over throw or change. They certainly will be hostile to our influence.

It is wrong to think that everyone thinks like we do. and it is even more wrong that they want us to save them.
 
  • #37
ComputerGeek said:
It still does not make them EVIL and in need to over throw or change. They certainly will be hostile to our influence.
It is wrong to think that everyone thinks like we do. and it is even more wrong that they want us to save them.
To the extent that they are moral cripples who never learned the difference between right and wrong, they are no more evil than a rabid dog is evil. Still, a rabid dog must be put down with extreme prejudice.

The mullahs who have some learning have no excuse, however. Ayatollah Khomeni once said that Christians have distorted the word of Christ. No respectable prophet, according to him, would advocate turning the other cheek. So, he has seen both sides of the story, and still chose the dark side. Therefore, Khomeni counts as genuinely evil.
 
  • #38
WarrenPlatts said:
To the extent that they are moral cripples who never learned the difference between right and wrong, they are no more evil than a rabid dog is evil. Still, a rabid dog must be put down with extreme prejudice.
The mullahs who have some learning have no excuse, however. Ayatollah Khomeni once said that Christians have distorted the word of Christ. No respectable prophet, according to him, would advocate turning the other cheek. So, he has seen both sides of the story, and still chose the dark side. Therefore, Khomeni counts as genuinely evil.

Your moral absolutism is amazing! There is no such thing as a universal right or a universal wrong. You see the fundi Islamists as being evil because your ego cannot accept that your beliefs could be interpreted as wrong by anyone who was good.

This is not about the morality of 3000 dead people at WTC, or the thousands killed as collateral damage by US Bombs. This is about the ideas that drive each society and both of our societies having offended the other.

If people would respect the beliefs and cultural mores of everyone else when they are in those places, then the WTC would not have been attacked.
 
  • #39
WarrenPlatts said:
right and wrong

Define "right" and "wrong".

A lot of ethicists are waiting for this monumental discovery, so if you could hurry up...?
 
  • #40
Treadstone 71 said:
When your family becomes "collateral damage", let's see if you still uphold that point of view.
If my family dies because I invited terrorists to dinner at my house, I'll deserve the punishment I get.
 
  • #41
ComputerGeek said:
there is something to be said about attempting to not kill innocent people.
Certainly.
There was no attempt here, and that is WHY the US is hated by, as our government considers them, "The Dirt People".

To the Bush admin, innocent brown skin people are not worth mitigating the damage over.
That quite simply isn't true. The western world is unique in that they do make an effort to minimize civilian casualties. 50 years ago, if you had a target to take out, you leveled the entire city block. Today, we go so far as to calculate angle of impact and size of munitions in order to reduce collateral damage. This was a precision strike: the people who died died because they were inside the buildings that were attacked.

It's bizarre that you would even mention this since you of course know that our enemies take actions designed specifically to maximize both our and their civilian casualties.
 
  • #42
ComputerGeek said:
So Terrorists should be dealt with as if they are criminals?

I thought Conservatives saw them as a military force.
C'mon, you know that war has rules. Again, this appears to be trolling. You are looking for a way to take a potshot at conservatives (as if being conservative has anything to do with this) and saying things that you know are not true as a basis.
Right and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal is all determined by the victor of an armed conflict.
No, it is not. There is an international body and an international court that can, and does, deal with such issues. You know this as well.

Why do you guys persist in saying things you know are wrong? Are you just plain trying to argue for the sake of arguing?
 
Last edited:
  • #43
ComputerGeek said:
If those people were collateral damage on an attack to kill enemies of the US, then the 3000 dead in the WTC are the same to the terrorists.
No. The 3000 killed on 9/11 were primary targets. Part of the reason for selecting the planes, the towers, and the time was in order to maximize civilian casualties.
think about that. You justify the deaths of innocents by claiming righteous motivations. That is exactly what the terrorists did to justify the deaths of the 3000 innocent people on 9/11. They are no more evil than the US.
No. The terrorists on 9/11 purposely killed 3000 civilians. If they had a way to kill 10,000 civilians, they'd do that as well.

You know these things. If you want a discussion, stop saying things that you know are wrong.
 
  • #44
ComputerGeek said:
So... a culture is evil because they do not have the same values as we superior westerners?
You're damn right!
What is right for us is not right for them. that is a fact, it is not good or evil.
That type of philosophy, complete moral relativism, ended in WWII and the countries of the world made a pact to keep it from happening again.
 
  • #45
Art said:
Tut tut Russ - I already answered this post but you have deleted my response without any reason given, presumably as it exposed the weakness in your rationale.
I did not delete your post, another moderator did.
 
  • #46
russ_watters said:
You're damn right! That type of philosophy, complete moral relativism, ended in WWII and the countries of the world made a pact to keep it from happening again.
That is quite possibly the most atrocious thing I have read in a while.
To presume that what a culture does as part of their way of life is some how evil because it is not our way just astonishes me.

We are not talking about Murder is good vs. Murder is bad. We are talking about Patriarchal vs. semi-egalitarian. just because the other culture is not semi-egalitarian does not mean they are evil in any way.

Now, if they tried to foist their way of life on us, we would not take kindly to it, how do you think they feel?
 
Last edited:
  • #47
ComputerGeek & Treadstone 71 said:
Your moral absolutism is amazing! There is no such thing as a universal right or a universal wrong. You see the fundi Islamists as being evil because your ego cannot accept that your beliefs could be interpreted as wrong by anyone who was good. . . .
If people would respect the beliefs and cultural mores of everyone else when they are in those places, then the WTC would not have been attacked.
. . . . .
Define "right" and "wrong".
A lot of ethicists are waiting for this monumental discovery, so if you could hurry up...?
I am absolutely NOT a moral absolutist, although Osama and company absolutely are. I am a moral realist. There's a big difference. And as a matter of fact I have extensively published my views on right and wrong right here in these forums:
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-98081.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105519
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=4
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=5
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=6
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
WarrenPlatts said:
I am absolutely NOT a moral absolutist, although Osama and company absolutely are. I am a moral realist. There's a big difference. And as a matter of fact I have extensively published my views on right and wrong right here in these forums:
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-98081.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105519
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=4
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=5
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=6
WARNING: If you like your knowledge to come in little bite-sized chunks like the way you two write, you will find this too much to swallow

I am a moral pragmatist. Absolutes are for suckers.
 
  • #49
Moral pragmatism is but one step removed from moral relativism. Moral relativists do what they want. Moral pragmatists do what whatever works--for them!
 
  • #50
WarrenPlatts said:
Moral pragmatism is but one step removed from moral relativism. Moral relativists do what they want. Moral pragmatists do what whatever works--for them!

What ever works in the situation. I have a code of ethics that keeps me from hurting others (either physically or monetarily), and I tell the truth, accepting the consequences.

I do, however realize that situations may change, and I must be flexible. does that mean I might kill? sure, if I was in a fight for my life. Might I steel? sure, if I needed to escape some place and needed to steel the key.

Moral pragmatism and moral relativism does not mean that the person is a hedonist or an anarchist.
 

Similar threads

News Osama Bin Laden killed by US in Pakistan
8
Replies
384
Views
41K
News Meanwhile - another day in Afghanistan
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Pakistan raid possibly devastating to Al Qaeda?
Replies
24
Views
4K
News Who was responsible for the death of Ibn al Sheikh al Libi?
Replies
14
Views
3K
News Should cartoonists be killed for drawing caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad?
Replies
2
Views
3K
News The Zarqawis and their lieutenants
Replies
11
Views
2K
News Will Bin Laden's truce offer bring an end to attacks on Europe?
Replies
5
Views
2K
News Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Support for American/Nato forces in Afghanistan
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
Replies
8
Views
5K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top