Current Events > I don't support terrorism, but killing innocents makes you just as bad as them

(+) Yeah! (+)

So I just read a topic recently, where it stated the US killed 100 woman and children, to kill some terrorist. Isn't it actions like that propels them to rise up against us? How does that make us any different from the terrorists who bomb innocents, in order to harm the West?

The war is practically a party with technological superiority vs a bunch of basic tech extremists. Do we really need to kill innocents, giving them more reasons to taste us, in order to kill a handful of extremists?
---

no those civilian deaths are just acceptable casualties of war. Of course when westerners are murdered it's a different story
---

Difference is, terrorists are doing their best to kill all of us while we're doing out best to kill as few people as possible while still preventing greater tragedies in the future.

Does that still make us no different from terrorists?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Difference is, terrorists are doing their best to kill all of us while we're doing out best to kill as few people as possible while still preventing greater tragedies in the future.

Does that still make us no different from terrorists?

Yes, because the innocent people that were killed, those that were not terrorist, didn't want to kill all of us, if any of us.

It's like saying they should try to kill some of us innocent people, because of groups like the KKK.
---

https://chomsky.info/20141103/

“It’s official: The U.S. is the world’s leading terrorist state, and proud of it.”
---

OEIO999 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Difference is, terrorists are doing their best to kill all of us while we're doing out best to kill as few people as possible while still preventing greater tragedies in the future.

Does that still make us no different from terrorists?

Yes, because the innocent people that were killed, those that were not terrorist, didn't want to kill all of us, if any of us.

It's like saying they should try to kill some of us innocent people, because of groups like the KKK.

It's not possible to guarantee no civilian casualties will happen when terrorist cells intentionally hide themselves among innocent people. The alternative to risking innocent life is to allow terrorists to go completely unchecked, which will undoubtedly result in more death and destruction.

So pick one: do you want a lot of innocent people to die, or do you want substantially less innocent people to die?
---

^I guess you're not still pretending to be a libertarian?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

OEIO999 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Difference is, terrorists are doing their best to kill all of us while we're doing out best to kill as few people as possible while still preventing greater tragedies in the future.

Does that still make us no different from terrorists?

Yes, because the innocent people that were killed, those that were not terrorist, didn't want to kill all of us, if any of us.

It's like saying they should try to kill some of us innocent people, because of groups like the KKK.

It's not possible to guarantee no civilian casualties will happen when terrorist cells intentionally hide themselves among innocent people. The alternative to risking innocent life is to allow terrorists to go completely unchecked, which will undoubtedly result in more death and destruction.

So pick one: do you want a lot of innocent people to die, or do you want substantially less innocent people to die?

if someone handed you a baby and tells you to choose between roasting and boiling the baby, will you pick one of those choices?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

So pick one: do you want a lot of innocent people to die, or do you want substantially less innocent people to die?

There's another dimension to it as well:
Do you want innocent Americans to die, or innocent foreigners (if you want to be baity you could even say innocent Muslims).
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Difference is, terrorists are doing their best to kill all of us while we're doing out best to kill as few people as possible while still preventing greater tragedies in the future.

Is that the sole reason America invades foreign countries?
---

The West have technological superiority and many, many more allies. They are vsing a bunch of battered down lunatics. The fact that we need to kill that many innocent people to kill a handful of terrorists, who will sprout again like weeds anyway, thanks to cases like this, is laughable.

Neither of us have a say in that and definitely not the US government. We don't get to choose which innocents die. Using that logic, the terrorists are justified in their bombing of innocent people, because they can't target their enemies.
---

Honestly war is ugly. There's no getting around it. Both sides do evil acts for the 'greater good' and the primary people who suffer are mostly the innocents caught in the middle. It would be nice if war was just between heroes and villains but that never happens.

There's no easy answer for any conflict. This stuff is just a constant cycle that constantly bleeds forwards.
---

OEIO999 posted...

Do we really need to kill innocents, giving them more reasons to taste us, in order to kill a handful of extremists?

Do you really think there are innocents in a terrorist stronghold. These women and children have been used to kill countless others. The cold hard truth is everyone in that place is a potential terrorist. The safest way to get rid of the threat is to bomb it, not send in a bunch of soldiers.

But hey, you all think it is so terrible yet none of you can come up with a safer idea.
---

That would make every country that's fought in a war terrorists.

PETA are animal terrorists disguised as animal rights activists. They kill almost every animal they get their grubby little hands on. Fuck those people
---

HashBrownAgain posted...

OEIO999 posted...

Do we really need to kill innocents, giving them more reasons to taste us, in order to kill a handful of extremists?

Do you really think there are innocents in a terrorist stronghold. These women and children have been used to kill countless others. The cold hard truth is everyone in that place is a potential terrorist. The safest way to get rid of the threat is to bomb it, not send in a bunch of soldiers.

But hey, you all think it is so terrible yet none of you can come up with a safer idea.

By that logic, we are all members of the KKK, neo-nazis, cartel, Yakuza, Mafia, Triads e.t.c

Like i told you in the other topic:

Probably because none of us are military figure heads who know what's going on and have access to tech and intelligence.

But I'd say funding the rebels to stop dictators, the rebels who in turn use those weapons against the west, isn't the best course of actions.

The west invaded the ME, they trenched deep into their nation, profiting from war and oil, now that war has become endless. Every decision the US has made with the ME has turned into complete clusterfuck.
---

HashBrownAgain posted...

These women and children have been used to kill countless others.

So when gang members move into your building, you become complicit in their crimes?
---

CartmanMustDie posted...

That would make every country that's fought in a war terrorists.

only the losing one. and it has always been that way.
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

OEIO999 posted...

We don't get to choose which innocents die. Using that logic, the terrorists are justified in their bombing of innocent people, because they can't target their enemies.

Not exactly, our ideology (western in general) is far superior to Islamic ideology which dominates the middle east.

I believe the main argument you will receive is in @Conflict like this, you will have casualties on both sides...and that cannot be helped, but it'd be a fuck load worse if we just left things as they are (which with the middle east wouldn't be so bad, let the place sink even further into shit)

Damn right, that's why we are 'better' than them.

But my point is, with our clear advantage, we don't need to stoop to their level to defeat them. Even worse, actions like this will sprout even more of these fanatics and then the cycle will never end.
---

Ricemills posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

OEIO999 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Difference is, terrorists are doing their best to kill all of us while we're doing out best to kill as few people as possible while still preventing greater tragedies in the future.

Does that still make us no different from terrorists?

Yes, because the innocent people that were killed, those that were not terrorist, didn't want to kill all of us, if any of us.

It's like saying they should try to kill some of us innocent people, because of groups like the KKK.

It's not possible to guarantee no civilian casualties will happen when terrorist cells intentionally hide themselves among innocent people. The alternative to risking innocent life is to allow terrorists to go completely unchecked, which will undoubtedly result in more death and destruction.

So pick one: do you want a lot of innocent people to die, or do you want substantially less innocent people to die?

if someone handed you a baby and tells you to choose between roasting and boiling the baby, will you pick one of those choices?

False equivalence. If left alone, ISIS will unquestionably kill more people. There's no option where no innocents die.

scar the 1 posted...

There's another dimension to it as well:
Do you want innocent Americans to die, or innocent foreigners (if you want to be baity you could even say innocent Muslims).

Since ISIS mostly kills innocent people around them, I don't see how this question is related to the topic.

Darmik posted...

Is that the sole reason America invades foreign countries?

I'm pretty sure that's why we're fighting ISIS right now, yes.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

I'm pretty sure that's why we're fighting ISIS right now, yes.

And what about the events that lead to the rise of ISIS?
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

OEIO999 posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

OEIO999 posted...

We don't get to choose which innocents die. Using that logic, the terrorists are justified in their bombing of innocent people, because they can't target their enemies.

Not exactly, our ideology (western in general) is far superior to Islamic ideology which dominates the middle east.

I believe the main argument you will receive is in @Conflict like this, you will have casualties on both sides...and that cannot be helped, but it'd be a fuck load worse if we just left things as they are (which with the middle east wouldn't be so bad, let the place sink even further into shit)

Damn right, that's why we are 'better' than them.

But my point is, with our clear advantage, we don't need to stoop to their level to defeat them. Even worse, actions like this will sprout even more of these fanatics and then the cycle will never end.

I don't disagree.
The combination of the wars in the middle east, Islam (particularly Islamism) and the oil has made it a place that isn't likely to see peace for many, many years.

A while back I was wondering if Sadaam Husein was the necessary evil, similar to working with certain cartels to limit the violence. In a hypothetical scenario, if Hussein could've been 'tailored' and significantly limit his killing of people, I wonder if that would've been the best long term solution for the Middle-East.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Difference is, terrorists are doing their best to kill all of us while we're doing out best to kill as few people as possible

>actually believing this
---

Darmik posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

I'm pretty sure that's why we're fighting ISIS right now, yes.

And what about the events that lead to the rise of ISIS?

Pulling out of Iraq before the country was secure enough to maintain law and order?
---

scar the 1 posted...

HashBrownAgain posted...

These women and children have been used to kill countless others.

So when gang members move into your building, you become complicit in their crimes?

You are when you are conscripted, which is the case here.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Since ISIS mostly kills innocent people around them, I don't see how this question is related to the topic.

That's a very fair point.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Ricemills posted...

if someone handed you a baby and tells you to choose between roasting and boiling the baby, will you pick one of those choices?

False equivalence. If left alone, ISIS will unquestionably kill more people. There's no option where no innocents die.

and people die too when we bombed them. so much for "false equivalence".
youre just a hypocrite.
---

how many terrorists did they kill? cause yeah, war is hell, but if we're killing 100 civilians to kill 10 terrorists, we're just as bad as the terrorists
---

Ricemills posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Ricemills posted...

if someone handed you a baby and tells you to choose between roasting and boiling the baby, will you pick one of those choices?

False equivalence. If left alone, ISIS will unquestionably kill more people. There's no option where no innocents die.

and people die too when we bombed them. so much for "false equivalence".
youre just a hypocrite.

I don't think you know what a false equivalence is

You suggested with your baby example that the choice is nonsensical because you don't have to kill the baby, but in reality there is no option where no one dies while fighting ISIS. If we fight them, innocents will die. If we do not fight them, more innocents will die.

Have the balls to pick a side or just stop.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Ricemills posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Ricemills posted...

if someone handed you a baby and tells you to choose between roasting and boiling the baby, will you pick one of those choices?

False equivalence. If left alone, ISIS will unquestionably kill more people. There's no option where no innocents die.

and people die too when we bombed them. so much for "false equivalence".
youre just a hypocrite.

I don't think you know what a false equivalence is

You suggested with your baby example that the choice is nonsensical because you don't have to kill the baby, but in reality there is no option where no one dies while fighting ISIS. If we fight them, innocents will die. If we do not fight them, more innocents will die.

Have the balls to pick a side or just stop.

have the balls to make your own side or shut up.
---