Two British Medical Students Who Joined Isis Killed In Iraq.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-latest-british-medical-students-killed-iraq-sudan-ahmed-sami-khider-a7606466.html

[andy-hughes]

" ... it does not issue ... "

That should read - it does not address ...

[TWR]

Did I see you use the Word "Moral" A.H. I have morals & its not killing people. if you feel bad about it, start a collection for their families.

[Sqad]

A-H

"A possible, but by no means guaranteed, outcome of the situation."

Absolutely correct, but it only becomes "guaranteed" when innocent people are killed.

Now............is it reasonable to wait, in this case under discussion?

[andy-hughes]

TWR - //Did I see you use the Word "Moral" A.H. I have morals & its not killing people. if you feel bad about it, start a collection for their families. //

You did see me use the word 'moral' because, as I have advised, I believe that if you 'rejoice' in the death of one or more strangers, you exempt yourself from being upset when others do the same.

You have yet to address the point I am making - if you wish to?

[andy-hughes]

Sqad - //Now............is it reasonable to wait, in this case under discussion? //

That is impossible to answer - because none of us can see into the future.

If the inference is that it is better that these two men are dead because of what they may have gone on to do, then that surely applies to anyone anywhere.

Should someone shoot President Trump tomorrow because he may press the nuclear button on Saturday?

The premise does not hold up.

[TWR]

My point, Deaths Vindicated,

[andy-hughes]

TWR - //My point, Deaths Vindicated, //

My point is that you cannot 'vindicate' one set of deaths with another - but obviously we disagree.

[-Talbot-]

No problem - but by taking that view, you remove from yourself the right to be in any way upset or angry when you see an Isis terrorist rejoicing in the death of someone his or her organisation has killed.




Bonkers!

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //Should someone shoot President Trump tomorrow because he may press the nuclear button on Saturday? The premise does not hold up.//

That’s irrational. These two men had joined ISIS. There is no question of waiting to see what they would do. They’d done it!

[Sqad]

A-H

"If the inference is that it is better that these two men are dead because of what they may have gone on to do, then that surely applies to anyone anywhere. "

Yes that IS the inference and one has to take the case on it's merits.i.e two young Muslims, educated in the UK join an established and accepted brutal terrorist movement.
That is you scenario.
I don;t think, although I do not know that Trump has an association with a terrorist or any other violent and ruthless society.

Your comparison is not accepted be me.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, //Should someone shoot President Trump tomorrow because he may press the nuclear button on Saturday? The premise does not hold up.//

That’s irrational. These two men had joined ISIS. There is no question of waiting to see what they would do. They’d done it! //

As I see it, the irrationality lies in the presumption that joining ISIS is a one-way ticket to the commission of terrorist activities which result in the deaths of innocent people.

That is a presumption which, in my view, does not stand.

But that is actually a side issue, standing apart from the moral dilemma I suggested to TWR, which remains unexplored from his or her side.

[andy-hughes]

Sqad - //I don;t think, although I do not know that Trump has an association with a terrorist or any other violent and ruthless society. //

Please allow me to assist you on that point -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/the-ku-klux-klan-officially-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-a7392801.html

[andy-hughes]

Talbot - //No problem - but by taking that view, you remove from yourself the right to be in any way upset or angry when you see an Isis terrorist rejoicing in the death of someone his or her organisation has killed.




Bonkers! //

Succinct - but uninformative, as usual - care to explain the background behind that conclusion?

[Sqad]

A-H

""Please allow me to assist you on that point - " LOL
That is NO assistance....that link says that the KKK endorses Trump's Presidency NOT that TRUMP is a member of the KKK.
This fall way below your usual high standard,

[andy-hughes]

Sqad - An absolutely fair point sir - thank you for the compliment, gratefully accepted, and returned, on the basis that you took my rather weak attempt at backing up my point, and smashed it out of the park!

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //As I see it, the irrationality lies in the presumption that joining ISIS is a one-way ticket to the commission of terrorist activities which result in the deaths of innocent people. //

It's not a presumption - that's what ISIS does.

As for what you call ‘the moral dilemma’, in my opinion there isn’t one.

It doesn’t follow that the KKK’s endorsement of Trump is reciprocated. That suggestion is spiteful.

[NoMercy]

Tragic!

[Sqad]

A-H......I very rarely score against you........off to my Club now.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - // That suggestion is spiteful. //

My suggestion that President Trump - a racist every time he breathes in and out - would not appreciate endorsement from his country's - if not the world's premier racist organisation, is 'spiteful'?

No problem, happy to be 'spiteful' then - except I'm not, just in your opinion, which isn't actually of vital importance.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //As for what you call ‘the moral dilemma’, in my opinion there isn’t one. //

That's fine - it's TWR's view I am keen on - rather than yours.