The only thing good that could come out of this despicable violence is that it will cause people around the terrorists to say, "No more!" Too many people are turning a blind eye, and saying "anything for the cause", whatever that cause may be. I pray that perhaps this will be the catalyst for a change in those people's hearts, and that they will have the courage and the moral integrity to stand up to the evil.

actually Marylyn,I think the bombing of Hyroshima is comparable or even more sinister than this Russian incident. 1.the atom bomb not only exterminated the cities population it continues to affect the outlying suburbs survivors children to this day 2.Truman didnt warn the Japanese what was going to happen or explain that surrender would avoid atomic bombing the reason being that by August the japanese were on the virge of surrender anyway, Truman needed an opportunity to use the bomb on a target to tell the Russians,by then only a few dozen km away from Japan, how powerful the US was. 100,000 ppl sacrificed just for a demonstration. Dresden was razed for a similar reason, to warn the approaching Russians to keep their distance.By 1944 Dresden had no strategic value as a target whatsoever.Churchill knew this but authorised the strike.

So in a way we are all the decendants of evil or people who voted for evil.

Sam

While I don't categorically defend the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, there was/is a line of thinking that said those acts drastically shortened the war, and ultimately saved more lives. A reasonable trade-off? I honestly do not know - no one will ever be able to know what would have happened otherwise, but I do believe that the men who planned and carried-out those missions had precisely that as their goal - ending the war.

In a case like this, I firmly believe the goal is nothing more than an attempt to blindly force a political agenda upon others, and damn the consequences. Pure evil - I would not dignify such bloodthirsty, rabid barbarians by calling them animals ... that would be too much of an insult to the animals.

My sincere thoughts and sympathies to the poor folks who were victimized by these savages.

Sam, I'm less interested in how anybody's ancestors behaved (or voted) than I am in how they act themselves.

It is an interesting moral question you raise, whether one sort of killing can be "better" than another. Traditionally our society has said it is ok to kill during war. This does lead to the deaths of many innocent people who are not official combatants.

But I cannot think of any society or religion, under any circumstances, that would sanction the deliberate murder of children. It is inherently abhorrent.

>But I cannot think of any society or >religion, under any circumstances, >that would sanction the deliberate >murder of children. It is inherently >abhorrent.
How about US,UK?
Germany publicly repents for the wrongdoings of the nazis but the US & British governments have never apologised for Atomic bombing of Hyroshima,or Firebombing of Dresden.Nor have their peoples ever pressured government to apologize or abhore these events.Russian population sanction the invasion and killing in Chechnya to have cheap oil.

The problem is the US/British/Russian government presents a more rosy version of what happens & most people swallow this version hook,bait & sinker.Very few take the time to read the information available in books/internet on what the human cost really was.

I think everybody who posted on this thread agrees that what happened in russia today was a horrible tragedy.what is being argued is that the thousands of chechnyans civilians killed,like those of Dresden, are rarely mentioned or given thought cause they were killed 'in a war',and so that makes it 'okay' by our societies.

Sam

I cannot understand how a human being could be so evil as to murder an innocent child in cold blood, it breaks my heart. My deepest sympathies to our friends in Russia.

Sam, I am not making light of the deaths of innocent civilians, including children, in the circumstances you have mentioned. All I am saying is that these terrorists could have taken a factory, a government building, or a department store, but they chose to take a school filled with children.

Why? To inflict the most pain on their enemy? To show that their hatred knows no bounds? To impress on the world that there is nothing beyond the pale for them, no action too repulsive in service to their cause?

sam, you trying to equate the USA to the filthy scum that killed these innocent russian kids is sick. Go peddle your silly crap someplace else.

degas, if you were president in 1945 would you have taken the decision to use the atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima?

Sam

I am horrified and sickened by the actions of a radical few in Russia. Remember how it felt in the US after 9/11 when the majority of the world flew their flags at half staff and showed us their support? Why have we not done that to show our support and concern for the Russian people? It was not done when they lost two planes full of people and now 100s of children have perished senselessly... and still we do not fly our flags at half staff. :sigh: It is such a minor thing to do. It is always the feeling of being powerless to help that is the worst in these situations. I want to help but all I have are prayers and a symbolic show of support. Thank you, hanl, for starting this thread.

Diane

sam, we can only ignor your moral obtuseness. You are way beyond reason...do you think that perhaps, after we had sacrificed 100s of thousands of American lives to WWII, that we were just a little angry, and a little eager to end all the killing? We tried isolationism, and then we were brought in to a war that we did not want w/ Pearl Harbor. We gave our all...we thought we should not sacrifice 1 more American life for those who would attempt to destroy our way of life.
I think Russia is seeing how brutal the terrorists are, and just how they will stop at nothing.

"SAM" and "got1tie1" should try reading books; it can be informative, particularly if one reads more than one point of view.

The Japanese were NOT preparing to surrender, unless arming the women and schoolchildren and drilling them to defend the homeland constitutes same.
The citizenry had been continually told they were winning the war, Same principle as the "madrassas" of today in the Arabic countries.
<<Truman didnt warn the Japanese what was going to happen or explain that surrender would avoid atomic bombing>> (maybe not the Hirsoshima bomb, but he did warn afterward of the Nagasaki bomb.)
As for Dresden, the Nazis were still fighting, still exterminating Jews, and would have been (but for poor management) still been bombing England. And the Russians were still largely occupied in Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Regardless, one can't emerge clean from a fight in a manure pile.