Your plane crashes

[Archer93]

I'll stand corrected on that, but here is his effort to justify suppression of info about torture:

Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard -- awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

[...]
​

Do you feel it would have been better to tell all, at the expense of other people's lives?
"I know that reporting this story will get you and your family killed, but the truth must out!" Is that what you would have said?

Wars are fought for political reasons, not emotional ones. And people en mass don't care enough about complete strangers to give up cheap petrol.
Jews trying to escape from Germany were turned back- WWII didn't start because of moral outrage but because the risk to other nation's sovereinty (sp?) was increasing. Remember Tianamon Square? And what about Tibet? All the information's out there, but I don't see sanctions being put in place against China. It's too useful, and as long as Hussein was useful, he was safe.
He just stopped be sufficiently useful.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Great points!

 

[FaithLikeARock]

But...I...

Do I count as a person in the room?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Do you feel it would have been better to tell all, at the expense of other people's lives?
"I know that reporting this story will get you and your family killed, but the truth must out!" Is that what you would have said?

The irony here is a riot, given we're in a thread where we're being asked if we would kill one child to allow for the release of 99.

Many people said that yes, they would kill a child if it meant the other 99 would go free.

So I suppose it's not a stretch that people would allow the possible death of people in order to expose long-term torture...

 

[yasic]

But...I...

Do I count as a person in the room?

You are a person in that room but not a child. The rules say you must kill a child.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

This complaint is comical in light of your transparent attempt to derail this thread. So take that as a "yes" if you like.

And as to the rest of your drivel, you're more than welcome to continue believing it.

I see. Well this sends the message to everyone that sometimes if you make a claim that can't be defended their posts will be edited to avoid backing up your own posts. Maybe there should have been something in the OP about "Showing your own work" and saying "If I make a claim that can't be defended I will ignore it and accuse others of trying to derail the thread."

(Post 250 by yguy)
"You won't necessarily have to wield a gun to have blood on your hands. You could just become a propagandist for him, helping him to maintain the power by which he continues to murder. Incidentally, this is essentially what CNN did by keeping silent about the torture it knew was going on in Iraq for a decade before the US finally invaded."
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50963480&postcount=250

(Post 254 by yguy)
"No, but this has been known for years. Eason Jordan resigned from CNN over it, because even the other media outlets were incredulous that a news outlet would suppress news and try to justify it."
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50963801&postcount=254

CNN was clearly brought up to defend an OP based position but suddenly it becomes a "derail" when it's proven that claim is hocus bogus. What was that about "drivel?"

 

[b&wpac4]

So, was the point of this thread to pose a moral hypothetical question that the poster believed he had the only correct answer to, kept changing the goalposts, and now mocks anybody who has a different conclusion than him?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

No; but if my reporters were not sanguine about putting their lives on the line, I sure as Hell wouldn't maintain a bureau in Iraq when I had no intention of reporting what was actually going on there.

So derailing is okay. Got it.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

The irony here is a riot, given we're in a thread where we're being asked if we would kill one child to allow for the release of 99.

Many people said that yes, they would kill a child if it meant the other 99 would go free.

So I suppose it's not a stretch that people would allow the possible death of people in order to expose long-term torture...

There is no irony because the claim CNN didn't report on Iraq's crimes is completely bogus. It was claimed CNN didn't report on the torture in the ten years previous the invasion. That puts us in 1993. Can anyone think of some events that took place a couple of years before that? I know peeps who still have VHS recordings of CNN's coverage. This is just a good example of how fast misinformation can create positions that are completely without cause or evidence.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

There is no irony because the claim CNN didn't report on Iraq's crimes is completely bogus. It was claimed CNN didn't report on the torture in the ten years previous the invasion. That puts us in 1993. Can anyone think of some events that took place a couple of years before that? I know peeps who still have VHS recordings of CNN's coverage. This is just a good example of how fast misinformation can create positions that are completely without cause or evidence.

Please reread the post I replied to, and then reread my post. I'm not gettin into the schematics of whether someone covered something up or not, I was focused more on the reaction of the person I replied to. They seemed to take umbrage at the fact that some people MIGHT die if the torture was revealed, which is ironic given that people in this thread have said they would kill a child to save 99.

I really don't care whether or not CNN covered it up because it was years ago and not really pertinent. It was more the reaction of the person I replied to that I focused on.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

MOD HAT ON​

Just a reminder to play nice with each other.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Please reread the post I replied to, and then reread my post. I'm not gettin into the schematics of whether someone covered something up or not, I was focused more on the reaction of the person I replied to. They seemed to take umbrage at the fact that some people MIGHT die if the torture was revealed, which is ironic given that people in this thread have said they would kill a child to save 99.

I really don't care whether or not CNN covered it up because it was years ago and not really pertinent. It was more the reaction of the person I replied to that I focused on.

Why assume a lack of comprension?

 

[FaithLikeARock]

You are a person in that room but not a child. The rules say you must kill a child.

I have the heart of a child. Does that count for anything?

 

[yasic]

I have the heart of a child. Does that count for anything?

Heh, nice try

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Heh, nice try

This thread wins the stamp of meanness. I can't make a decision like that. D:

 

[yguy]

I can't make a decision like that.

Close enough.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

OK, glossing over the past hundred-odd pages of bickering...

If the dictator's could be trusted (i.e., if I knew that, if I didn't kill one child, he would kill them all), then I would kill one child.

If I didn't know this for certain, I wouldn't shoot the child. I am not inclined to trust a dictator who hands the survivor of a plane crash a gun, and commands him to kill one child in a group of 100 (lest the dictator kill them all). Trust is earned, and that kind of behaviour is not how one goes about it :kawii:.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

This thread wins the stamp of meanness. I can't make a decision like that. D:

Questions like the OP can be a useful tool for exploring ontological natures of moral constructions but at the end of the day nobody can make a supported proclamation of what is a right or wrong answer.

 

[morningstar2651]

So, was the point of this thread to pose a moral hypothetical question that the poster believed he had the only correct answer to, kept changing the goalposts, and now mocks anybody who has a different conclusion than him?

More or less.

 

[yguy]

More or less.

To anyone determined to see it that way, I'm sure it is.