Is AIDS a cause of death?

If you agree it is, then you agree that if within a system that exists normally as an equilibrium between naturally occuring forces attacking it and a defence system, the defence system fails, this failure itself can be seen as a first cause of failure of the entire system.

If someone with AIDS dies of a normal flew, we still see AIDS as the primal cause of death, because in a world full of bacteria fungi and virusses, if the victim wouldn't have encountered virus 1 today, then we can be sure that he still would have encountered virusses 2 t/3000 within the same 24 hours. And those virusses would have resulted in death just as much as this peticular one.

So If there would be no police or military to ensure peace and stability, this lack of force itself would be the cause of the anarchy and violence occurring within this failed state, just as much as the lack of a functioning immune-system is the cause of death in AIDS victims.

If afghanistan would have had a strong army and incorruptable police force, there wouldn't have been a soviet and taliban occupation and there wouldn't have been al-qaida basis either, so then there wouldn't have been 9/11 attacks and therefore no US lead invasion either and possibly also no popular majority for invading iraq.

If one bullet can alter a chain of events that dramatically, then the pacifist decission not to fire it could be the cause of death for thousands of people.

I think NOT firing it should always be considered and prefered, but not always be the outcome of the proces.

As you can see the analogy applies to over-active immune-systems just as much.

"so then there wouldn't have been 9/11 attacks"

I think there is enough evidence to assume that the US government played a role in 911. Really, why do people keep goin on as if everything they tell you about 911 makes any sense? Are you THAT gullable?

We could argue your reasoning regarding long-term effects of any assassination, but for now Ill just say this: We are talking about a specific case here, Bin Laden. Do you think his death (and all that has lead into it, the international agreements and human rights violations and the consequences that we have seen and are still to see) was worth it? And if you do, would you have the courage to explain your argument above to the family and children of one of the 90 dead people that died in the recent attack in pakistan to revenge bin laden's death?

I cannot make that judgement. I don't know how information on bin-laden's location was obtained. I don't know how much of a thread he still was (i can see why the obama administration would want to make it look like they prevented the next 9/11, even if osama would have been nothing more than a hermit), i don't know many other things.

I would have no problem defending the allied invasion of normandy to all of the familymembers of people who died that day, though.

I was just speaking in broad terms, as much as i suppose the statement i was responding to was a broad term statement and probably not refering to the assasination of osama bin-laden specifically.

At the end i said that the opposite could be true as well and an over-active immune system/overzealous security apparatus could be just as destructive.

I feel i am not in the position to judge wich of the two is the case here. It seems that generally speaking there is much to say for the 'overzealous' hypothesis when it comes to the war against terror. It has lead to invasions in too many places and too many deaths.

If the obama administration would come-up with solid evidence that osama-bin laded was planning another big attack that would have caused the lives of thousands, and that this single action prevented it from happening, i would definately defend this action, including everything resulting from it.

Personally I think the problem is that there is very little evidence for either argument about 911. There is only speculation by the conspiracy theorists and misinformation from the government. Honestly I'm not sure what I think about it. In the past I've allowed myself to get worked up with one view or another, but in the end I have to admit that I personally have no proof what-so-ever...and neither do the vast majority of the people on this planet. We know what the news media told us....or we know what a random website has told us.


What I'm most disturbed about is that Bin Laden was assassinated and not brought to a fair trial in the USA. Even though we have video evidence of him admitting that he did it, I still think we should have had a trial. Honestly a bullet to the head in the field is far to kind for this man (if he did what is claimed). An actual trial were he was found guilty and sentenced to death followed by years of sitting in a cell waiting for his fate in an electric chair would have been much more appropriate....yes I realize this goes counter to what I said earlier...what can I say I'm allowed to change my mind right?

Shooting him in the field and then tossing his body over the ship into the ocean sounds a little fishy for sure. And then we are told not to worry because they have actual DNA evidence....WHO? Who has this actual DNA evidence? Can I get a tissue sample to submit for independent analysis? Again we have a case were we can trust the media or not, but the reality is we simply don't know one way or the other whether this story is true or not....but let's be honest. If Obama had ordered the SEAL team to capture Bin Laden they would have captured him. He was ordered dead and that is assassination and I'm not for that because it flies directly in the face of what so called democracies hold so dear.

Even with all the human rights violations, the people that got tortured in guantanamo, the lives destroyed due to the wars (supposedly) on the search of Bin Laden/against terrorism? So what about killing bush / obama instead, considering you know they are have and are planning these wars which will be causing many deaths? And what about the consequences of going after them and the collateral deaths? And what about the angry children of the collateral damage which will be planning deaths of others as revenge, are we gonna justify killing them too? Where does it end?

I would say lets stop justifying deaths, denounce them and work for long term peaceful/sustainable actions.

This is a good question. And i'm ambiguous about what the answers are.

On the one hand i think about it like in the analogy with the human body i made: without a functioning defence system, the body will die from any organism that will try to invade it.
With a defence system that is over-active, the body dies suffering from it's own defence system.

In real-life politic's these types of decissions will have to be made: what is gonna be the net-result in life's safed/ destroyed from pulling a trigger or pushing a button, considering that both pushing the button and not pushing it is gonna have serious and fatal consequences?

If a political leader is not willing to accept ANY collateral damage, he as a result of keeping his hands clean, may be actually responsable for more deaths in the long run than the deaths he feels he prevented by keeping those clean hands. For winston churchill and theodore roosevelt this would most certainly have been the case.

For many wars fought, i honestly don't think we know what a proper assasement would have been. The second war in iraq is a very clear case of a war that should not have been fought. The first one i tend to think, should not have been fought either. But the first war that was focussed on liberating kuwait is much more shady and difficult to realy asses for ordinary man like us who don't know the details about all powers at play. I feel the same way about the invasion of afghanistan: what would the results have been if al-qaida would have been allowed to safely broaden and strengthen it's basis there?

I'm personally a fan of the budhist concept of karma, so i don't view the idea of keeping clean hands at all time as highly ethical if the possible consequences are not been taken into consideration.

(an interesting question in this regard is: what if tony blair only decided to join the american invasion in iraq because it was the only way to influence the bush administration? what if without blairs interventions the bush administration would have acted even more irresponsible and used cluster bombs and other very dirty shit in densely populated areas? what if blairs commitment prevented the death toll of bush's iraq project to be at least a twofold of what it was? would we still see him as a war criminal then? if it would be so, he would never admit the true reasen for his commitment because of diplomatic reasons)

But on the other hand...

What if the basis of all of our ethics doesn't allow for elaborate 'calculations'? What if in essence our minds aren't realy capable of taking possible long term consequences into consideration?
What if our moral functioning as a biological behavioural phenomenon is limited to our very direct responsability only?

In that case the statement that any murder is equally unnacceotable at all times is right.

I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I do know that i am very glad not to be involved in politic's because i don't think i could cope very well myself with the burden of such responsibilities. One of the reasons i don't envy men with power and why i'm wary of making easy statements as "obama is a hero/ war criminal".

This: Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama

and this: The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai

There's plenty more in that vein, it's all publicly documented. I agree with everything Ice House has said. There are issues with this "accomplishment" that go back a decade...there are issues that show that corruption runs to the core...with that understanding, how can this be seen as anything more than political maneuver and manipulation of the minds of the global populace?

"I remember my parents telling me how, on the day it was announced that Hitler was dead, there was no rejoicing in the streets, just private relief and satisfaction. The real celebration came six days later at the announcement that the war in Europe was over. THAT'S what the people wanted to hear – not just the demise of one evil madman, but the end to all the killing."----Michael Moore may 13, 2011

from www.truthout.org