You tell me.
Feel free to rationalize that.
It's not a moral position. It would be effective, but not moral.
You tell me.
Feel free to rationalize that.
We weren't at war officially. And we are discussing morals. You are defending murder when alternatives to murder are available.
don't change the subject
No.does it even matter who the president is? everyone one reps what the past one did in the last 4 years (or 8) for the next 4 at least
I'm absolutely defending the murder of Osama Bin Laden. Feel free to quote me on that anytime you want.
It's literally the same subject.
Your mental gymnastics are amazing, btw.
how about the murder of one of his wives that day too?
was that ok because it was death by association?
is that how it works with you?
No, you are defending the concept of murdering someone willing to sue for peace. A scenario that you presented.
I'm 100% fine with killing that entire fucking house
At some point peace isn't worth it over justice.
At some point peace isn't worth it over justice.
At some point peace isn't worth it over justice.
And there it is. You're describing vengeance, not justice.
Again, it doesn't. You're overlooking your own stupid hypothetical again. If bin laden was willing to talk it would be immoral to kill him without persuing talks first, regardless of whether or not you're glad he's dead.
Yes, Navy Seals killing Osama Bin Laden was exactly like Kim Jong Un killing thousands of his own people via labor camps and executions, in retrospect.