:
|
For 1) He will be ultimately powerless, 2) He can't interact with the outside world, and 3) any followers of his will have their morale weakened as opposed to if we killed him.
|
Point taken. That pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say the whole time. It's quite obvous that the consequences of what he's done were due, but again - his death was completely untimely. For instance, the Democrats have entered the Congress and the US is planning on withdrawing. Will this be a possibility if the violence escalates further? I think not. It's
very important to avoid being short-sighted in this question. Saying "he's killed, so he should die" is being just that, because few people would stop to consider how many more people could potentially become victims of the war due to his execution.
:
|
Wouldn't you rather one person die than thousands of people die? In my opinion, killing one person is 'less of a crime' than killing thousands.
|
In reverse, that would be like valuing one person over a thousand. It doesn't hold for long. There is no difference between killing and killing. However, I'd be a hypocrite to say that I would rather let thousands die before one single man. If it were up to me, I'd make the easy call and let myself go.
:
|
One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic.
|
Something to think about.