[Mega] MAGA Super Trump Mega Thread
- Thread starter -SS-
- Start date
That doesn't make it morally correct, and also why I'm not arguing against it. I'm honestly flabbergasted that you don't seem to grasp that. The point is, if you're willing to murder someone who is surrendering because you think they're bad enough to deserve it, what are the circumstances you (or the mob) require to meet your standards for whether they deserve it. You've said you would murder Kim Jong Un at a peace conference. You've said you would murder Bin Laden if he surrendered. Now you're saying it's justified because people would agree with you.
I'm saying it's a morally reprehensible attitude. You're not denying it as morally reprehensible. You're rationalizing it by saying other morally reprehensible people would do it too. That's not a counterargument. So again, what's your cutoff? Are you ok with the police shooting unarmed criminals who have killed people before?
There was no standing "Kill" order given for Osama Bin Laden.
If Bin Laden walked up to you and surrendered, regardless of who you are, Military or Civilian, you would be obligated by law to detain him (or refuse) and lead/point him toward an authority that could detain him, Alive.
Even on the night he was killed... the Seal Team's rules of engagement for the mission clearly stated that if he surrenders and presents himself as non-threatening, he is to be captured alive. There was no "Shoot on Site" orders given. Only if he posses a threat and endangered lives was he to be killed with prejudice.
If Bin Laden walked up to you and surrendered, regardless of who you are, Military or Civilian, you would be obligated by law to detain him (or refuse) and lead/point him toward an authority that could detain him, Alive.
Even on the night he was killed... the Seal Team's rules of engagement for the mission clearly stated that if he surrenders and presents himself as non-threatening, he is to be captured alive. There was no "Shoot on Site" orders given. Only if he posses a threat and endangered lives was he to be killed with prejudice.
Last edited:
I would do a better job at the peace summit, or just not have one at all. It doesn't make sense to give the north koreans huge propaganda victories at home in return for nothing.
Killing him isn't the craziest thing you could do, but you need a plan for the aftermath in his country. Someone friendly in a position to stage a coup. I'm sure the CIA has tried multiple times.
havax
Super Genius
lol sure you would, little buddy. and keep on drinking that msm kool-aid with the whole propaganda victory spiel. good job. never change (as if you ever would).
You just keep extrapolating when really, this is an argument about two (2) people. You're so dishonest.
"Well he wants bin laden and kju dead, so he's probably okay with police shooting unarmed criminals too"
slippery slope much? this is just pathetic.
jfc triple
icard2: it's like you're missing multiple chromosomesFrom Admiral William McRavens' own mouth:
"The strict rules of engagement said that if he is clearly not a threat, then you have to capture him - you can't just kill him.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/osama-bin-laden-capture-alive-us-military-admiral-william-mcraven-al-qaeda-navy-seal-team-pakistan-a7847286.html
It was not a choice, it was "Alive, Unless Dead" orders. Kill him if you have too, but take him alive if the opportunity presents itself.
There is a huge fucking difference in the authority granted by an off-hand anecdotal remark given at a press conference, and a legally binding directive given as an officially stated order.
Last edited:
Let's break it down triple. I pointed out your doublethink for calling Kim Jong Un a morally reprehensible person while at the same time being personally willing to murder him at a peace summit. You said that wasn't doublethink, arguing as a result that murdering Kim Jong Un at a peace summit wasn't morally reprehensible, rationalizing it by asking me if I would've killed bin laden. I replied that I would not kill bin laden if the circumstances were the same, while under a flag of peace.
At no point have I created a slippery slope, at no point has my position changed, at no point have I changed the circumstances of the argument. If you believe it's morally acceptable to murder Kim Jong Un at a peace summit, if you believe it's ok to murder Bin Laden after he surrenders, then you are presenting a pattern. Either you don't believe in basic morality, or you believe that a person who meets a certain standard of poor morality themselves is not entitled to being treated with basic morality. I've asked you several times to define that standard, but you haven't. Thus I can only base my interpretation on the two people you've mentioned: Kim Jong Un and Bin Laden.
Now these are two terrible people with long careers of murder. It's easy to understand why they are on your list of acceptable to murder no matter the circumstance. It's still morally reprehensible to do so, but I understand the rationale. My question to you, as it has always been and as you have refused to answer, is what is the bottom? How far down does it go? Does it stop there? Does a murderer have to have thousands of kills for you to waive morality standards? Do you reserve it for the worst of the worst? Or are your standards applicable to a wide range of people, all the way down to a small, local level?
At no point have I created a slippery slope, at no point has my position changed, at no point have I changed the circumstances of the argument. If you believe it's morally acceptable to murder Kim Jong Un at a peace summit, if you believe it's ok to murder Bin Laden after he surrenders, then you are presenting a pattern. Either you don't believe in basic morality, or you believe that a person who meets a certain standard of poor morality themselves is not entitled to being treated with basic morality. I've asked you several times to define that standard, but you haven't. Thus I can only base my interpretation on the two people you've mentioned: Kim Jong Un and Bin Laden.
Now these are two terrible people with long careers of murder. It's easy to understand why they are on your list of acceptable to murder no matter the circumstance. It's still morally reprehensible to do so, but I understand the rationale. My question to you, as it has always been and as you have refused to answer, is what is the bottom? How far down does it go? Does it stop there? Does a murderer have to have thousands of kills for you to waive morality standards? Do you reserve it for the worst of the worst? Or are your standards applicable to a wide range of people, all the way down to a small, local level?
