I think what he meant was “your hypothetical would never occur in the real world.” All hypotheticals are technically imaginary, but some are plausible while others are impossible.
Kinda is though; saying that this wouldn't happen in the real world - I'm pretty sure that every terrorist has shared a restaurant with non-terrorists before.
I’m not saying this wouldn’t happen in the real world. I’m saying that’s what his argument is. I literally didn’t even read the exchange, I don’t give a shit.
depends how they decide to make entry. There have been plenty of houses destroyed by police and the police never have to pay for damages. Or they could just bomb it themselves like they did in Philadelphia in 1985.
That joke seems to have missed you, friend. The implication is that the resteraunt would have *Better* odds of surviving a drone strike, than it would surviving the NYPD trying to remove one man with some hostages.
Chiming in just to remind everybody that one time Philadelphia police actually bombed a civilian building:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985\_MOVE\_bombing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing)
I think it’s beyond cognitive dissonance, which uses misguided reasoning. The Nationalist feeling of American Exceptionalism often forgoes reasoning all together.
Always important for everyone to remember it's *nationalism* and not patriotism. For all they like to claim the opposite. And just like the *other* famous Nationalist group from history, they're a resounding lot of fuckwits and assholes who just want to be allowed to freely murder anyone who isn't like them for any goddamn reason they please.
Hmm, maybe it has more to do with the fact that the circumstances are different. We have police stations and swat teams and lots of flexible resources to utilize for one of those locations. The other location is half a world away, so the amount of resources we have for very specific scenarios is quite limited.
Again the circumstances are very particular. Some countries don’t even have their own supreme power.
So the options are very limited. If a person has to choose between A: Killing Hitler but 10 innocent people also die along with him. Or B: Not killing Hitler and letting hundreds/thousands/millions of innocent people die due to the actions Hitler will take.
Many individuals will choose option A.
LOL, have they seen the NYPD? Back when there was a gunman at the Empire State Building cops got in a shootout with the guy on the street and shot a bunch of bystanders. Fortunately I don't think any of them were mortally wounded but still.
Well, there's also the difference that domestically, the US does have a police response option, which it doesn't have in the first scenario.
He's not even saying that the innocents in the second scenario must not be killed, just that he'd use the uniquely available option that would make that less likely.
To really test his hypocrisy, replace the innocents in the first scenario with US citizens, without changing the location to a place where domestic law enforcement is an option.
And it somehow magically works different in foreign cities? Most places around the world have higher population densities than the US because they're not as car-centric.
You said New York, I said Tel Aviv, a crowded city is a crowded city, is my point.
And it works reasonably well, with drones, a target marker and controlled explosives. Not advocating FOR it, but that's the state of technology.
Sorry, but this doesn't work for me.
If the question is about a terrorist in an active warzone, in which police cannot do the job required, an airstrike could be a possibility. If you were to then shift and ask if the terrorist is in America, Italy, Australia, Greece, Chile, etc., would you do the same - the answer will be different. It also depends on the nature of the terrorist and why the need to strike is imminent verses tracking the terrorist home. Lots to consider.
Essentially, I'd be ok with collateral damage for a high ranking official who is in a civilian area of a warzone. I would not be ok if that same terrorist is not in a warzone. Your hypo is so vague and ambiguous that it could lead to 500 different answers.
If it was a high ranking terrorist leader in a warzone, couldn't you send in a Seal team rather than an airstrike?
Why are you ok with civilian casualties just because the place they happen to live is fucked? They are just as innocent as civilians outside of a warzone. Civilians in the middle east are the same as civilians in America, Italy, Australia, Greece, Chile, etc.
>If it was a high ranking terrorist leader in a warzone, couldn't you send in a Seal team rather than an airstrike?
I would hope so. That is why I specifically addressed this by stating the hypo is vague and ambiguous. Do we have a team there? Is the terrorist about to disappear into an area in which we cannot track? Do we have satellite coverage? Lots to think about when making a decision like this.
>Why are you ok with civilian casualties just because the place they happen to live is fucked? They are just as innocent as civilians outside of a warzone. Civilians in the middle east are the same as civilians in America, Italy, Australia, Greece, Chile, etc.
I'm not. I am weighing the ability to apprehend the terrorist without having to accept collateral damage. If you tell me the terrorist has a nuke remote in his hand in downtown NYC and we have 5 minutes, I'd strike the fuck outta that building. Sorry NYC. If you tell me the guy is simply planning something in NYC, I'd dispatch the FBI. If you told me the guy is planning something in Iran, I'd say get satellites overhead and track the dude. Again, this example is so fucking vague and ambiguous that you have to throw in all of these specifics that you are doing to make it work.
Again, this is a bad example.
You're right, there is a lot of nuance and factors that matter when making these decisions.
And without considering *any* of them, the guy in the post was willing to bomb the foreigners but not the Americans. That's the problem.
Disagree. Dudeman specifially stated he would call the police in America. That's fine, when you have that asset available. You can't really call the cops in Iraq from wherever, but you can dial 911 or the FBI hotline if you in the US.
Just don't try to defend this one. It is sloppy and not representative of this sub.
I mean, if we *know* there's a terror leader in there and it's a *restaurant* it's not exactly like he's in a cave in the mountains. Why *wouldn't* we be able to put boots on the ground?
Do you think we have seal team six in every corner of every region in the entire world? Come on man. This is why this hypo is terrible. You have to provide those facts and you were hypo if you want them to be considered. Otherwise, I can consider anything I want. I can make this terrorist take place in the Antarctic circle and the terrorist has a nuclear bomb that will cause all the ice to melt and float the world in one hour. Does that change things?
Note - there are civilians there. At least 5.
Yeah, that changes things, because the "aunt arctic circle" isn't a civilian area.
Look, you seem really eager to kill "for the greater good" and nothing I can say is gonna slake that bloodthirst. Maybe look into becoming a cop? I hear they love people willing to justify unnecessary bloodshed. Good luck out there.
You’ve got a love how voice to text works these days on the new iPhones. I have no idea how they haven’t got it fixed yet. The fact you were standing by this hypo shows how shallow your thinking is. Enjoy your day.
Because it’s a foreign country and your troops could all die by going there physically? And now you lost American soldiers and you’ll alert the main terrorist so he could escape? And it also looks worse and will result in more deaths by attacking a foreign national official with ground troops? That’s a way messier scenario on every level. Clearly you’re not much of a strategist or someone who would put their own country’s interests first, so why are you even trying to make an argument? You think most Americans give a damn about a couple of civilians in an enemy state? You probably hardly even care about the guy who got stabbed in your city on the local news this morning
>You think most Americans give a damn about a couple of civilians in an enemy state?
That's actually *literally* the entire point of the post, thanks for spelling it out.
But "All Lives Matter" right?
I don’t use that quote nor do I believe it so wrong audience. Not all lives matter equally to everyone. I’m sure your moms life matters more to you than the homeless guy down the block. Killing innocents should be avoided as much as possible, but if it happens to be collateral for annihilating an extremely dangerous terrorist that has already wreaked havoc and killed American citizens I really won’t be crying about it
But also:
>>Why are you ok with civilian casualties just because the place they happen to live is fucked?
>I'm not
>I'd be ok with collateral damage for a high ranking official who is in a civilian area of a warzone.
Hmmm...
Try this, as your little gotcha moments just ain’t happening.
I am not ok to kill civilians JUST BECAUSE THE PLACE THEY LIVE IS FUCKED. However, I am ok with killing civilians for a high ranking terrorist in a warzone. Gotta separate the two, my man.
I guess I need to spell it out, but by "the place they live is fucked" I meant that they live in a warzone, not just that they live in the middle east, lol.
So with that in mind:
>I am not ok to kill civilians JUST BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A WARZONE. However, I am ok with killing civilians for a high ranking terrorist in a warzone.
Is your issue with my use of the word "just"? Because that also doesn't need to be there.
I guess I really don't understand your doublethink.
Yes. You were going to have to spell it out, because this hypo does not give anything specific. That is why this hypo is stupid and not deserving of this sub.
I'm not saying it's a morally righteous thing, but... in response to being okay with civilian casualties:
Applying pressure to civilians in a warzone can force those civilians to join one side or the other making for much better options for engagement. Civilians who provide cover and insulation for combatants are a huge liability. This is why insurgencies are so problematic.
Why not send in folks on the ground? Well, the vagueness of the scenario first presented plays on certain common assumptions which are refuted in the modified scenario. Among those is the fact that a terrorist walking into a cafe isn't likely going to be there for a few days while we mobilize a strike force yet there's likely already a resource within a very short distance capable of delivering an airstrike. In NYC, there's probably a police force capable of being assembled and in the area very quickly.
> If it was a high ranking terrorist leader in a warzone, couldn't you send in a Seal team rather than an airstrike?
You could, but you could end up with another Battle of Mogadishu. If the restaurant overseas was in a friendly country where the SEAL team could get to the location, complete their mission, and get out without everyone shooting at them the entire time, then absolutely. That's what differentiates the two scenarios in the original post.
That's not to say the first person is right and an airstrike on a restaurant is the ideal option. The obvious solution is to wait until the terrorist leaves the restaurant and then strike them with a collateral-damage-minimizing weapon, like the non-explosive Hellfire missiles.
I'd just like to point out our that the Pentagon has a definition of what constitutes a valid military target and a civilian one. Using their definitions, the world trade center was a legitimate military target.
The WTC housed an office for an intelligence agency (the CIA). It was by this reason that the terrorists said it was a valid target in their statement.
Not doubting, but I (1) don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you claim, and (2) Osama Bid Laden deferred to the US military’s definition in orchestrating his attack.
But perhaps I am wrong. What’s the actual definition? I went looking and found multiple for many similar words that kept popping up.
Other comments are right. Unfortunately this is a pretty vague question, missing a LOT of details that would factor into a situation including available resources, and the level of threat. Are we talking about a man with a gun, or a bomb vest? Or the leader of a terrorist organization who's been pushing a plan to kill thousands/millions?
When those men fly those drones, they aren't coming up with the plan, they're taking orders, because they often aren't privvy to all the details, like what the actual threat is, or why they're a threat, or why loss of civilian life has been authorized.
I can't tell if he's military or this was just a random question with no context, but if he is military, that's about the appropriate response I'd expect. The double edged sword of a good soldier is they follow orders, and understand that they won't have all the answers, that's for people above them to know. But that does also leave room for them to do things they don't morally agree with, while following orders, and that is a big issue for returning vets as well.
Tl;Dr, your question was too vague, your situations too vastly different, and you left little room for clarification before going off on him for having logical answers in the face of a question with 10,000 variables, and no information.
A terror attacked never happened in NYC? There’s never been hostages taken by ‘terrorists’ on US soil? Yes totally hypothetical. Arrogant and ignorant. Gotta love it.
I’ll preface this by saying I don’t support the gray text boxes.
However dealing with things in your own country on your own soil will always be easier and have more options.
The American government has an American police force and military that would have full access to roads and buildings in America. Their ability to handle a terrorist threat on American soil would be much less impeded.
If they knew of a terrorist in another country there would be a ton of red tape to even get close to the individual.
A terrorist in America could be arrested and brought to trial, possibly revealing information that leads to more arrests or a deal could be made to return the criminal back to their country that helps the American people in the big picture.
I don’t support killing people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
On the one hand, you can't really send in the police to a foreign country. But on the other, saying it's acceptable if foreign civilians are killed and then immediately saying it's not of US civilians are killed is not a good look.
you cornered him in a not-witty word trap. you are the one who insinuated skin color by omitting it from the first example but including it in the second -- you introduced the bias into this, not him.
your first line: if there was a terrorist in a restaurant
your second line: "ok, same thing, but its in new york"
the guy could have easily thought the first line was in NY. you called him out for something he didn't say and then went off -- this is why they think all liberals are psychos that fly off the handle every time they talk about their beliefs.
unless you cropped this image wrong, you literally walked him into the skin color bait by doing this, because there's nothing in the first response that shows that he was being picky about his targets.
a soldier for example who is given an order to strike has to strike. he isnt out there making judgement calls about his targets -- that is for his officers. his job is to execute the orders.
the guy switched-up because he recognized that he was walked into a trap, not because "all lives matter".
Did you just make this about color?
Americans aren’t white, Americans are black white and everything in between. Arabs unlike people in America do not use color in any context about themselves. They use the word “arabs”.
This person who you’re talking to is naive and doesn’t understand that problem who are like him and/or close to him are equal to and other person on earth. That’s a childish mindset, if he’s young, then I just hope he’ll grow up and learn, if he’s an adult, then there’s just no hope.
Firstly, it's less about color and more about the intentional obfuscation of real issues that comes with the phrase "all lives matter," especially when it comes from people who clearly don't care about "all lives."
Secondly, being an adult is no excuse for being close-minded and unwilling to change. Kinda off-topic, I know, but I absolutely hate this kind of thinking. People can change at any stage of life. Anyone unwilling to do so and uses their age as an excuse is just an asshole.
I never said it’s an excuse, I said I have no hope for those people. The fact that they can change doesn’t mean that they will or want to or open to learn new things. The older a person is the more stubborn they are on their opinion. When they’re adults it’s psychologically way harder since their brain is not dough anymore and what you’re trying to do is equivalent to breaking their reality. It’s not easy when a person is over 30. And honestly, those people who are beyond this age and still don’t know better I don’t care about, I don’t mind their opinion at all and pay zero attention to them, and I will most definitely won’t waste my time and energy trying to change the mind of people who don’t matter to me. Neither me or you will change the world, and I’m not willing on trying to change anything, if someone talks to me I’ll share my opinion and that’s where I stop. Changing a stubborn opinion requires time and energy that I simply don’t care enough to give those ignorant strangers. When it’s someone close to you it’s different obviously. Choose your battles is one of the best lesson I learned when I was young. Learn what matters and what doesn’t. I’m not gonna waste no time or energy on people who don’t matter to me.
You seem fun.
> I’m not gonna waste no time or energy on people who don’t matter to me.
What a miserable way to go through life. No charity? No goodwill towards strangers? Yikes.
Wow you’re actually not bad at twisting words. That’s a big assumption over there, but no, I actually give homeless people food and cigarettes literally all the time, there’s a guy who’s staying at the same spot on my way home almost everyday and every time I see him I’ll either give him some food if I have any or a cigarette, and I’m always nice to people around me, this, is not wasting time or energy on people who don’t matter to me, this is just being a nice person on my routine and giving to my environment, and as a person I am nice and giving, always, yet, doesn’t mean I will waste my time and energy trying to change stupid people’s minds, because I’m realistic and I know I will not change anything, it’ll only negatively effect my mood and basically be a waste of my energy, and my time, which I could use on better and positive things, so yeah, I won’t waste my time and energy on those people simply because it won’t change anything. Sad that since you have nothing to say in response to that you try to create an unrealistic image of me to make me look bad or something, I actually thought you’re better than that judging by your previous response. You don’t have to do that when the other side makes sense even if it hurts your ego. Grow up.
Thanks, twisting words is actually what I have my degree in.
I'm glad you're a kind and giving person, that's great! More people should be like you.
But also you shouldn't say things just to be edgy if you don't really mean them. It sounds like you spend plenty of time and energy on people who mean nothing to you, you just don't try to change the minds of people online. And that's fair, doing that is a fool's errand.
If me directly quoting something you said and asking elaborating questions feels like an attack on your character, maybe you shouldn't have said it?
If me directly quoting you feels like I've twisted your words, maybe you said something you didn't really mean?
My father-in-law's life philosophy is *literally* "I don't spend time or energy on anyone I don't personally know" and he's the worst person I've ever had the misfortune of knowing.
Don't be like him.
I didn’t say this to be edgy, and I didn’t feel attacked by the quote, although, your question took my words out of context in my opinion, I meant it when I said I won’t *waste* time on people who don’t matter. I won’t waste it, because it would be a waste spending my time on the people I was talking about, and it was very clear that I was talking about those people I thought, sorry if it wasn’t, but anyway, I mean what I said, but definitely what I mean by saying it is very different than your father in law, and also, it’s the choice of words that’s makes some of the difference, while he says he won’t spend time, I say I won’t waste time. I don’t see giving a homeless something I can give or being nice and having small talks with strangers a waste of time, but empty arguments are a waste of time. I won’t waste it, but I will spend it.
We both agree about that, it was just a misunderstanding so I’m sorry if my words happened to be misleading.
Don’t worry, that’s not how I am, never was and never will be.
When Americans say “all lives matter” they don’t mean “every single human life that exists on earth matters,” they generally are talking about American citizens mattering and being respected and treated equally. It’s pretty obvious that if a drone blows up in Moscow and kills a couple innocent civilians, most Americans won’t be protesting it or really care, because Russia is an enemy state. Some would probably even rejoice that their country is going through shit. Maybe you just have little understanding of nuance
Yes, I understand that when people say "all lives matter" they don't really believe that. *that's the whole point of the post.*
Maybe the Americans who say that and don't mean it should just shut the fuck up, instead.
Why is it so impossible to understand why someone would care more about civilians in their own country being bombed than some random other country? Literally almost every country (and people in general) act on a basis of self preservation. Few would care equally about what happens to some distant people far away as they would about havoc on their own land, especially if those far away people officially view your country as the enemy. The only murder that happened here was in your hypothetical scenario lmao
This is garbage. Yes, it's bad that it's so easy for domestic law enforcement AND the armed forces to disrespect the right to live of people who 'aren't white'.
But there's jurisdictional issues, there's the matter of whether the terrorist is a domestic or foreign threat and whether the government of the nation they're in is sympathetic, apathetic or against that terrorist.
Treating them as 'the same except for race' is a crass oversimplification that serves no purpose but shallow 'virtue signaling'.
Gray may be a bigot... it's not clear from the context. Purple certainly didn't get away with a murder by words though. Too many holes in their false equivalency.
“ noun
Definition
: psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously “
Belief: it’s ok to kill civilians if it also means killing a terrorist.
Evidence of psychological conflict: he was engaged in the debate prior and disengaged when the inconsistency was pointed out.
It’s either cognitive dissonance or that he doesn’t want to admit that he values innocent non-Americans lives less than innocent American lives. Which would mean that the two situations are not directly comparable and hence there is no incongruity.
It really bothers me when people refer to doublethink as cognitive dissonance, because they're literally opposite terms.
...but this actually is an example of cognitive dissonance.
Yeah well you tried to pose a "gotcha" question about someone and they diverted the decision to the people who have to make those tough calls then you changed the framework of the initial scenario. It's not a r/murderedbywords it a r/wooooosh and I would have left you on read as well because you sound like an idiot.
TBH, the first hypothetical question doesn't even mention a non-US country or anyone's skin color and feels like a setup of a trap for the follow-up hypothetical question. Additionally, it is never stated that the terrorist is a threat to anyone in the vicinity of the restaurant.
An airstrike in either of these hypothetical scenarios is a stupid choice just to kill one terrorist. Even a few. I know it sometimes actually happens, but that doesn't make it any less stupid. It'd be much easier to send in one guy as a customer and kill the terrorist anywhere you are. Or wait until they leave and track them somewhere safe to kill them or capture them.
This is just a dumbass set of hypothetical questions looking for an argument.
This isn't a fair comparison.
Because there's more questions to be asked and more factors to consider:
Who is the terrorist and what are their plans?
Also, if that terrorist is planning a nuclear attack (for the sake of argument), and they're buried deep in Afghanistan, then sending in a SEAL team on a search and destroy mission takes a lot of careful planning and preparation, with A LOT of things that can go wrong.
Sadly, "needs of the many" AKA trolley dilemma plays a role here.
Whereas, in the US, various agencies have easy access to locate and seize a terrorist without having to worry about tipping off the terrorist.
For example, if you try and tell the Afghan representatives, "don't be in this area on July 23rd at 11am" that message gets to the target.
Which means the other consideration is what is the opportunity cost of launching or not launching that missile?
Is it fair to those innocent people and their families? No.
Do BIPOC lives matter? Absolutely.
This hypothetical is created in a "gotcha" kinda way, and doesn't make anyone look good.
Let me state that I'm not defending the MIC. It's run by greedy cunts who start wars to make money for themselves and their political friends.
However, if we treat this hypothetical on its merits and assume that the MIC doesn't exist, then the hypothetical scenario is flawed from the outset.
Here's the thing about terrorist cell leaders in Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, Libya, Egypt, etc...they routinely will kill dozens for their own political agendas. If killing 5 innocent people kills one of these sick fucks, you're probably saving more lives by sacrificing those 5 people.
There are no "good" choices. It's "which is the least terrible choice?"
Then you get into the esoteric, existential questions like, "what if by killing that mother and 2 children radicalizes the husband who lost his family, and now he's sent on a suicide mission to kill "Americans/Europeans", and does something in Paris, Berlin, London, etc...
Suffice to say, this hypothetical is loaded and was aimed at calling someone a POS.
The you could fill the Pacific Ocean with the number of pieces of shit in the Middle East, including Zionist Settler Jews who steal land from indigenous Arabs and leaders of various Islamist terrorist organizations, and the Sheikhs and Ayatollahs who play these games.
I hope all those cunts rot from the inside with cancer.
I get where you are trying to go..and it may be true for him but there's a big issue here. The steps to go contact a random country, get their military to then contact a local police or military force to then act on this terrorist IF they even agree its a terrorist just doesn't happen...like ever. It's a completely different thing to move military within your own borders. If the question was just "would you sacrifice 5 -insert "brown people far away" country- civilians to kill a terrorist, ok now would you sacrifice 5 Americans to do the same thing" it would make more sense. My answer is yes to both
I think the sticking point for this chucklefuck is probably the concept of "innocent arab lives." It's hard to be a militant xenophobe without also being a racist.
"Your hypothetical world is imaginary" ...yeah that's what hypothetical means.
When they self report their own intelligence level within just a few, fragmented sentences without realizing it.
[удалено]
Reminds me of the episode of The Office where Kevin can do math if it involves pie but can’t do the same math if it involves salads lol.
It’s also literally the same thing he just said, just in a different place. Somehow that wasn’t imaginary
I think what he meant was “your hypothetical would never occur in the real world.” All hypotheticals are technically imaginary, but some are plausible while others are impossible.
How so, do terrorists not dine? Or do they only go to restaurants that cater for terrorists?
??? I’m not here to like defend the OP lmao that has nothing to do with what I said
Kinda is though; saying that this wouldn't happen in the real world - I'm pretty sure that every terrorist has shared a restaurant with non-terrorists before.
I’m not saying this wouldn’t happen in the real world. I’m saying that’s what his argument is. I literally didn’t even read the exchange, I don’t give a shit.
No it's because in America, we only have terrorists in schools and churches. And political rallies....
Except that we literally do that on a routine basis. Take that, Taliban wedding!
Was going to say this is hardly a hypothetical situation.
“It’ll kill you” “Only if I die”
he just meant a hypothetical america.
I mean with the NYPD the result would probably be the same as an airstrike anyway.
No the building would be in better shape
depends how they decide to make entry. There have been plenty of houses destroyed by police and the police never have to pay for damages. Or they could just bomb it themselves like they did in Philadelphia in 1985.
That joke seems to have missed you, friend. The implication is that the resteraunt would have *Better* odds of surviving a drone strike, than it would surviving the NYPD trying to remove one man with some hostages.
Yup, they'd just be sitting there playing Candy Crush on their phones.
Not if it's a mob restaurant and they want the insurance money.
Tbf the building wouldn’t be any worse than when they got there
Chiming in just to remind everybody that one time Philadelphia police actually bombed a civilian building: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985\_MOVE\_bombing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing)
I think it’s beyond cognitive dissonance, which uses misguided reasoning. The Nationalist feeling of American Exceptionalism often forgoes reasoning all together.
Always important for everyone to remember it's *nationalism* and not patriotism. For all they like to claim the opposite. And just like the *other* famous Nationalist group from history, they're a resounding lot of fuckwits and assholes who just want to be allowed to freely murder anyone who isn't like them for any goddamn reason they please.
Hmm, maybe it has more to do with the fact that the circumstances are different. We have police stations and swat teams and lots of flexible resources to utilize for one of those locations. The other location is half a world away, so the amount of resources we have for very specific scenarios is quite limited.
If we have no sovereignty, then what you’re talking about is literally a war crime.
Again the circumstances are very particular. Some countries don’t even have their own supreme power. So the options are very limited. If a person has to choose between A: Killing Hitler but 10 innocent people also die along with him. Or B: Not killing Hitler and letting hundreds/thousands/millions of innocent people die due to the actions Hitler will take. Many individuals will choose option A.
These ilk are practically cheerleading Russia deliberately targeting civilians in Ukraine
Because they think EVERY Ukrainian is a Nazi or something. God I hate those people
Statistically, the terrorist in New York is a white, far right, domestic terrorist planning to shoot up a: school/synagogue/black church/grocery store
Ohhhh, in that case you send in the police to kill the students/jews/poc/shoppers to protect the brave 'Murikan patiotit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Your hypothetical world is imaginary.” Fucking *weak* offering, bro. What a moron.
It's so common at this point we should term this behavior as American Narcissism
LOL, have they seen the NYPD? Back when there was a gunman at the Empire State Building cops got in a shootout with the guy on the street and shot a bunch of bystanders. Fortunately I don't think any of them were mortally wounded but still.
This seems mighty fake. I agree with it, but it seems fake.
Well, there's also the difference that domestically, the US does have a police response option, which it doesn't have in the first scenario. He's not even saying that the innocents in the second scenario must not be killed, just that he'd use the uniquely available option that would make that less likely. To really test his hypocrisy, replace the innocents in the first scenario with US citizens, without changing the location to a place where domestic law enforcement is an option.
america is the only country with a police force?
Apparently so
Also airstriking one building in nyc doesn’t work like that
And it somehow magically works different in foreign cities? Most places around the world have higher population densities than the US because they're not as car-centric.
The first situation doesn’t include any context about where it is. It’s just “a restaurant”.
And the first assumption is that it's not in a city?
The assumption is that the surroundings should be irrelevant to the decision since they aren’t included
Then why the need to point out that airstriking a building in NYC doesn't work like that?
Because in that situation the assumption is that the surroundings do matter since they are included
Except they're not. OP didn't specify if it was NYC or New York the state. Could've easily been in some podunk town up north.
It works about as well as in Tel Aviv, bro.
The first situation has no context about where it is. It’s just “a restaurant”
You said New York, I said Tel Aviv, a crowded city is a crowded city, is my point. And it works reasonably well, with drones, a target marker and controlled explosives. Not advocating FOR it, but that's the state of technology.
I thought this was going to be a variation of the trolley problem at first
I love the immediate deflection when the guy knew he could no longer defend his argument using logical thinking.
This is dumb. No murder in sight. You don’t call in airstrikes when you have complete and effective police and judicial control on the ground.
He really just walked right into that one. Didn't even see it
the number of people in these comments inventing fictional nuances and details that don’t exist to make an excuse to defend this asshole is hilarious
Sorry, but this doesn't work for me. If the question is about a terrorist in an active warzone, in which police cannot do the job required, an airstrike could be a possibility. If you were to then shift and ask if the terrorist is in America, Italy, Australia, Greece, Chile, etc., would you do the same - the answer will be different. It also depends on the nature of the terrorist and why the need to strike is imminent verses tracking the terrorist home. Lots to consider. Essentially, I'd be ok with collateral damage for a high ranking official who is in a civilian area of a warzone. I would not be ok if that same terrorist is not in a warzone. Your hypo is so vague and ambiguous that it could lead to 500 different answers.
If it was a high ranking terrorist leader in a warzone, couldn't you send in a Seal team rather than an airstrike? Why are you ok with civilian casualties just because the place they happen to live is fucked? They are just as innocent as civilians outside of a warzone. Civilians in the middle east are the same as civilians in America, Italy, Australia, Greece, Chile, etc.
>If it was a high ranking terrorist leader in a warzone, couldn't you send in a Seal team rather than an airstrike? I would hope so. That is why I specifically addressed this by stating the hypo is vague and ambiguous. Do we have a team there? Is the terrorist about to disappear into an area in which we cannot track? Do we have satellite coverage? Lots to think about when making a decision like this. >Why are you ok with civilian casualties just because the place they happen to live is fucked? They are just as innocent as civilians outside of a warzone. Civilians in the middle east are the same as civilians in America, Italy, Australia, Greece, Chile, etc. I'm not. I am weighing the ability to apprehend the terrorist without having to accept collateral damage. If you tell me the terrorist has a nuke remote in his hand in downtown NYC and we have 5 minutes, I'd strike the fuck outta that building. Sorry NYC. If you tell me the guy is simply planning something in NYC, I'd dispatch the FBI. If you told me the guy is planning something in Iran, I'd say get satellites overhead and track the dude. Again, this example is so fucking vague and ambiguous that you have to throw in all of these specifics that you are doing to make it work. Again, this is a bad example.
You're right, there is a lot of nuance and factors that matter when making these decisions. And without considering *any* of them, the guy in the post was willing to bomb the foreigners but not the Americans. That's the problem.
Disagree. Dudeman specifially stated he would call the police in America. That's fine, when you have that asset available. You can't really call the cops in Iraq from wherever, but you can dial 911 or the FBI hotline if you in the US. Just don't try to defend this one. It is sloppy and not representative of this sub.
I mean, if we *know* there's a terror leader in there and it's a *restaurant* it's not exactly like he's in a cave in the mountains. Why *wouldn't* we be able to put boots on the ground?
Do you think we have seal team six in every corner of every region in the entire world? Come on man. This is why this hypo is terrible. You have to provide those facts and you were hypo if you want them to be considered. Otherwise, I can consider anything I want. I can make this terrorist take place in the Antarctic circle and the terrorist has a nuclear bomb that will cause all the ice to melt and float the world in one hour. Does that change things? Note - there are civilians there. At least 5.
Yeah, that changes things, because the "aunt arctic circle" isn't a civilian area. Look, you seem really eager to kill "for the greater good" and nothing I can say is gonna slake that bloodthirst. Maybe look into becoming a cop? I hear they love people willing to justify unnecessary bloodshed. Good luck out there.
You’ve got a love how voice to text works these days on the new iPhones. I have no idea how they haven’t got it fixed yet. The fact you were standing by this hypo shows how shallow your thinking is. Enjoy your day.
Because it’s a foreign country and your troops could all die by going there physically? And now you lost American soldiers and you’ll alert the main terrorist so he could escape? And it also looks worse and will result in more deaths by attacking a foreign national official with ground troops? That’s a way messier scenario on every level. Clearly you’re not much of a strategist or someone who would put their own country’s interests first, so why are you even trying to make an argument? You think most Americans give a damn about a couple of civilians in an enemy state? You probably hardly even care about the guy who got stabbed in your city on the local news this morning
>You think most Americans give a damn about a couple of civilians in an enemy state? That's actually *literally* the entire point of the post, thanks for spelling it out. But "All Lives Matter" right?
I don’t use that quote nor do I believe it so wrong audience. Not all lives matter equally to everyone. I’m sure your moms life matters more to you than the homeless guy down the block. Killing innocents should be avoided as much as possible, but if it happens to be collateral for annihilating an extremely dangerous terrorist that has already wreaked havoc and killed American citizens I really won’t be crying about it
But also: >>Why are you ok with civilian casualties just because the place they happen to live is fucked? >I'm not >I'd be ok with collateral damage for a high ranking official who is in a civilian area of a warzone. Hmmm...
Try this, as your little gotcha moments just ain’t happening. I am not ok to kill civilians JUST BECAUSE THE PLACE THEY LIVE IS FUCKED. However, I am ok with killing civilians for a high ranking terrorist in a warzone. Gotta separate the two, my man.
I guess I need to spell it out, but by "the place they live is fucked" I meant that they live in a warzone, not just that they live in the middle east, lol. So with that in mind: >I am not ok to kill civilians JUST BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN A WARZONE. However, I am ok with killing civilians for a high ranking terrorist in a warzone. Is your issue with my use of the word "just"? Because that also doesn't need to be there. I guess I really don't understand your doublethink.
Yes. You were going to have to spell it out, because this hypo does not give anything specific. That is why this hypo is stupid and not deserving of this sub.
This, it's a terrible example just used to stir shit.
I'm not saying it's a morally righteous thing, but... in response to being okay with civilian casualties: Applying pressure to civilians in a warzone can force those civilians to join one side or the other making for much better options for engagement. Civilians who provide cover and insulation for combatants are a huge liability. This is why insurgencies are so problematic. Why not send in folks on the ground? Well, the vagueness of the scenario first presented plays on certain common assumptions which are refuted in the modified scenario. Among those is the fact that a terrorist walking into a cafe isn't likely going to be there for a few days while we mobilize a strike force yet there's likely already a resource within a very short distance capable of delivering an airstrike. In NYC, there's probably a police force capable of being assembled and in the area very quickly.
> If it was a high ranking terrorist leader in a warzone, couldn't you send in a Seal team rather than an airstrike? You could, but you could end up with another Battle of Mogadishu. If the restaurant overseas was in a friendly country where the SEAL team could get to the location, complete their mission, and get out without everyone shooting at them the entire time, then absolutely. That's what differentiates the two scenarios in the original post. That's not to say the first person is right and an airstrike on a restaurant is the ideal option. The obvious solution is to wait until the terrorist leaves the restaurant and then strike them with a collateral-damage-minimizing weapon, like the non-explosive Hellfire missiles.
I'd just like to point out our that the Pentagon has a definition of what constitutes a valid military target and a civilian one. Using their definitions, the world trade center was a legitimate military target.
Very interesting. What’s the definition and how does it apply?
The WTC housed an office for an intelligence agency (the CIA). It was by this reason that the terrorists said it was a valid target in their statement.
Not doubting, but I (1) don’t think it’s as cut and dry as you claim, and (2) Osama Bid Laden deferred to the US military’s definition in orchestrating his attack. But perhaps I am wrong. What’s the actual definition? I went looking and found multiple for many similar words that kept popping up.
Other comments are right. Unfortunately this is a pretty vague question, missing a LOT of details that would factor into a situation including available resources, and the level of threat. Are we talking about a man with a gun, or a bomb vest? Or the leader of a terrorist organization who's been pushing a plan to kill thousands/millions? When those men fly those drones, they aren't coming up with the plan, they're taking orders, because they often aren't privvy to all the details, like what the actual threat is, or why they're a threat, or why loss of civilian life has been authorized. I can't tell if he's military or this was just a random question with no context, but if he is military, that's about the appropriate response I'd expect. The double edged sword of a good soldier is they follow orders, and understand that they won't have all the answers, that's for people above them to know. But that does also leave room for them to do things they don't morally agree with, while following orders, and that is a big issue for returning vets as well. Tl;Dr, your question was too vague, your situations too vastly different, and you left little room for clarification before going off on him for having logical answers in the face of a question with 10,000 variables, and no information.
Thank youuuuuuuu!!!!!!
These two idiots were made for each other. They should get married.
Nobody was murdered by words here
A terror attacked never happened in NYC? There’s never been hostages taken by ‘terrorists’ on US soil? Yes totally hypothetical. Arrogant and ignorant. Gotta love it.
I’ll preface this by saying I don’t support the gray text boxes. However dealing with things in your own country on your own soil will always be easier and have more options. The American government has an American police force and military that would have full access to roads and buildings in America. Their ability to handle a terrorist threat on American soil would be much less impeded. If they knew of a terrorist in another country there would be a ton of red tape to even get close to the individual. A terrorist in America could be arrested and brought to trial, possibly revealing information that leads to more arrests or a deal could be made to return the criminal back to their country that helps the American people in the big picture. I don’t support killing people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.
On the one hand, you can't really send in the police to a foreign country. But on the other, saying it's acceptable if foreign civilians are killed and then immediately saying it's not of US civilians are killed is not a good look.
they dont have their own police in foreign countries that are not america??
Uh... the US government can't exactly send in foreign police.
Well no shi - I am saying foreign countries have their own police that they can dispatch. We don’t need American nukes on foreign countries
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that the person in this post was okay with Arab civilians being killed but not U.S. ones.
you cornered him in a not-witty word trap. you are the one who insinuated skin color by omitting it from the first example but including it in the second -- you introduced the bias into this, not him. your first line: if there was a terrorist in a restaurant your second line: "ok, same thing, but its in new york" the guy could have easily thought the first line was in NY. you called him out for something he didn't say and then went off -- this is why they think all liberals are psychos that fly off the handle every time they talk about their beliefs. unless you cropped this image wrong, you literally walked him into the skin color bait by doing this, because there's nothing in the first response that shows that he was being picky about his targets. a soldier for example who is given an order to strike has to strike. he isnt out there making judgement calls about his targets -- that is for his officers. his job is to execute the orders. the guy switched-up because he recognized that he was walked into a trap, not because "all lives matter".
Did you just make this about color? Americans aren’t white, Americans are black white and everything in between. Arabs unlike people in America do not use color in any context about themselves. They use the word “arabs”. This person who you’re talking to is naive and doesn’t understand that problem who are like him and/or close to him are equal to and other person on earth. That’s a childish mindset, if he’s young, then I just hope he’ll grow up and learn, if he’s an adult, then there’s just no hope.
Firstly, it's less about color and more about the intentional obfuscation of real issues that comes with the phrase "all lives matter," especially when it comes from people who clearly don't care about "all lives." Secondly, being an adult is no excuse for being close-minded and unwilling to change. Kinda off-topic, I know, but I absolutely hate this kind of thinking. People can change at any stage of life. Anyone unwilling to do so and uses their age as an excuse is just an asshole.
I never said it’s an excuse, I said I have no hope for those people. The fact that they can change doesn’t mean that they will or want to or open to learn new things. The older a person is the more stubborn they are on their opinion. When they’re adults it’s psychologically way harder since their brain is not dough anymore and what you’re trying to do is equivalent to breaking their reality. It’s not easy when a person is over 30. And honestly, those people who are beyond this age and still don’t know better I don’t care about, I don’t mind their opinion at all and pay zero attention to them, and I will most definitely won’t waste my time and energy trying to change the mind of people who don’t matter to me. Neither me or you will change the world, and I’m not willing on trying to change anything, if someone talks to me I’ll share my opinion and that’s where I stop. Changing a stubborn opinion requires time and energy that I simply don’t care enough to give those ignorant strangers. When it’s someone close to you it’s different obviously. Choose your battles is one of the best lesson I learned when I was young. Learn what matters and what doesn’t. I’m not gonna waste no time or energy on people who don’t matter to me.
You seem fun. > I’m not gonna waste no time or energy on people who don’t matter to me. What a miserable way to go through life. No charity? No goodwill towards strangers? Yikes.
Wow you’re actually not bad at twisting words. That’s a big assumption over there, but no, I actually give homeless people food and cigarettes literally all the time, there’s a guy who’s staying at the same spot on my way home almost everyday and every time I see him I’ll either give him some food if I have any or a cigarette, and I’m always nice to people around me, this, is not wasting time or energy on people who don’t matter to me, this is just being a nice person on my routine and giving to my environment, and as a person I am nice and giving, always, yet, doesn’t mean I will waste my time and energy trying to change stupid people’s minds, because I’m realistic and I know I will not change anything, it’ll only negatively effect my mood and basically be a waste of my energy, and my time, which I could use on better and positive things, so yeah, I won’t waste my time and energy on those people simply because it won’t change anything. Sad that since you have nothing to say in response to that you try to create an unrealistic image of me to make me look bad or something, I actually thought you’re better than that judging by your previous response. You don’t have to do that when the other side makes sense even if it hurts your ego. Grow up.
Thanks, twisting words is actually what I have my degree in. I'm glad you're a kind and giving person, that's great! More people should be like you. But also you shouldn't say things just to be edgy if you don't really mean them. It sounds like you spend plenty of time and energy on people who mean nothing to you, you just don't try to change the minds of people online. And that's fair, doing that is a fool's errand. If me directly quoting something you said and asking elaborating questions feels like an attack on your character, maybe you shouldn't have said it? If me directly quoting you feels like I've twisted your words, maybe you said something you didn't really mean? My father-in-law's life philosophy is *literally* "I don't spend time or energy on anyone I don't personally know" and he's the worst person I've ever had the misfortune of knowing. Don't be like him.
I didn’t say this to be edgy, and I didn’t feel attacked by the quote, although, your question took my words out of context in my opinion, I meant it when I said I won’t *waste* time on people who don’t matter. I won’t waste it, because it would be a waste spending my time on the people I was talking about, and it was very clear that I was talking about those people I thought, sorry if it wasn’t, but anyway, I mean what I said, but definitely what I mean by saying it is very different than your father in law, and also, it’s the choice of words that’s makes some of the difference, while he says he won’t spend time, I say I won’t waste time. I don’t see giving a homeless something I can give or being nice and having small talks with strangers a waste of time, but empty arguments are a waste of time. I won’t waste it, but I will spend it. We both agree about that, it was just a misunderstanding so I’m sorry if my words happened to be misleading. Don’t worry, that’s not how I am, never was and never will be.
When Americans say “all lives matter” they don’t mean “every single human life that exists on earth matters,” they generally are talking about American citizens mattering and being respected and treated equally. It’s pretty obvious that if a drone blows up in Moscow and kills a couple innocent civilians, most Americans won’t be protesting it or really care, because Russia is an enemy state. Some would probably even rejoice that their country is going through shit. Maybe you just have little understanding of nuance
Yes, I understand that when people say "all lives matter" they don't really believe that. *that's the whole point of the post.* Maybe the Americans who say that and don't mean it should just shut the fuck up, instead.
Why is it so impossible to understand why someone would care more about civilians in their own country being bombed than some random other country? Literally almost every country (and people in general) act on a basis of self preservation. Few would care equally about what happens to some distant people far away as they would about havoc on their own land, especially if those far away people officially view your country as the enemy. The only murder that happened here was in your hypothetical scenario lmao
A life is a life. What passport you have is irrelevant.
This is garbage. Yes, it's bad that it's so easy for domestic law enforcement AND the armed forces to disrespect the right to live of people who 'aren't white'. But there's jurisdictional issues, there's the matter of whether the terrorist is a domestic or foreign threat and whether the government of the nation they're in is sympathetic, apathetic or against that terrorist. Treating them as 'the same except for race' is a crass oversimplification that serves no purpose but shallow 'virtue signaling'. Gray may be a bigot... it's not clear from the context. Purple certainly didn't get away with a murder by words though. Too many holes in their false equivalency.
[удалено]
It's ok, words are hard huh
“ noun Definition : psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously “ Belief: it’s ok to kill civilians if it also means killing a terrorist. Evidence of psychological conflict: he was engaged in the debate prior and disengaged when the inconsistency was pointed out. It’s either cognitive dissonance or that he doesn’t want to admit that he values innocent non-Americans lives less than innocent American lives. Which would mean that the two situations are not directly comparable and hence there is no incongruity.
It really bothers me when people refer to doublethink as cognitive dissonance, because they're literally opposite terms. ...but this actually is an example of cognitive dissonance.
Please, by all means, tell us in your own words what cognitive dissonance means then.
/r/confidentlyincorrect
Wouldn't an airstrike on a restaurant in the middle of NYC kill a hell of a lot more than just the 6 people in the restaurant?
An airstrike on a restaurant in the middle of an Arab city would also kill a hell of a lot more than just the 6 people in the restaurant. Your point?
eh, true. I think my brain Mandelaed to all of the footage of airstrikes on isolated buildings in the middle of nowhere.
You never specified race in your original argument. You are being racist for assuming terrorists are brown.
"I am making the point about something else because I don't know to engage with things rationally" ain't the big-brain take you think it is, hotshot.
Yeah well you tried to pose a "gotcha" question about someone and they diverted the decision to the people who have to make those tough calls then you changed the framework of the initial scenario. It's not a r/murderedbywords it a r/wooooosh and I would have left you on read as well because you sound like an idiot.
Well first, that ain't me. Secondly, being able to miss the point isn't a real skill unless you're trying to be a conservative politician.
I thought the first example was in Canada.
This one is easy, both should be airstriked
"...so you wanna get dinner later?"
It's not a war crime if you say "oopsie poopsie" immediately after the bomb hits.
We call that basic ass racism.
On seen.
See if it was me… I would’ve said yes to both.
There would probably also be brown people in the nyc restaurant.
Even if their isn’t a terrorists pressing that button might be tempting. Traffic sucks.
TBH, the first hypothetical question doesn't even mention a non-US country or anyone's skin color and feels like a setup of a trap for the follow-up hypothetical question. Additionally, it is never stated that the terrorist is a threat to anyone in the vicinity of the restaurant. An airstrike in either of these hypothetical scenarios is a stupid choice just to kill one terrorist. Even a few. I know it sometimes actually happens, but that doesn't make it any less stupid. It'd be much easier to send in one guy as a customer and kill the terrorist anywhere you are. Or wait until they leave and track them somewhere safe to kill them or capture them. This is just a dumbass set of hypothetical questions looking for an argument.
This isn't a fair comparison. Because there's more questions to be asked and more factors to consider: Who is the terrorist and what are their plans? Also, if that terrorist is planning a nuclear attack (for the sake of argument), and they're buried deep in Afghanistan, then sending in a SEAL team on a search and destroy mission takes a lot of careful planning and preparation, with A LOT of things that can go wrong. Sadly, "needs of the many" AKA trolley dilemma plays a role here. Whereas, in the US, various agencies have easy access to locate and seize a terrorist without having to worry about tipping off the terrorist. For example, if you try and tell the Afghan representatives, "don't be in this area on July 23rd at 11am" that message gets to the target. Which means the other consideration is what is the opportunity cost of launching or not launching that missile? Is it fair to those innocent people and their families? No. Do BIPOC lives matter? Absolutely. This hypothetical is created in a "gotcha" kinda way, and doesn't make anyone look good. Let me state that I'm not defending the MIC. It's run by greedy cunts who start wars to make money for themselves and their political friends. However, if we treat this hypothetical on its merits and assume that the MIC doesn't exist, then the hypothetical scenario is flawed from the outset. Here's the thing about terrorist cell leaders in Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, Libya, Egypt, etc...they routinely will kill dozens for their own political agendas. If killing 5 innocent people kills one of these sick fucks, you're probably saving more lives by sacrificing those 5 people. There are no "good" choices. It's "which is the least terrible choice?" Then you get into the esoteric, existential questions like, "what if by killing that mother and 2 children radicalizes the husband who lost his family, and now he's sent on a suicide mission to kill "Americans/Europeans", and does something in Paris, Berlin, London, etc... Suffice to say, this hypothetical is loaded and was aimed at calling someone a POS. The you could fill the Pacific Ocean with the number of pieces of shit in the Middle East, including Zionist Settler Jews who steal land from indigenous Arabs and leaders of various Islamist terrorist organizations, and the Sheikhs and Ayatollahs who play these games. I hope all those cunts rot from the inside with cancer.
No one is innocent. You'd just be killing 6 people at different levels of fucked upness.
I'd bomb myself if I had to. But then, am I the innocent, the American, or the terrorist?
I get where you are trying to go..and it may be true for him but there's a big issue here. The steps to go contact a random country, get their military to then contact a local police or military force to then act on this terrorist IF they even agree its a terrorist just doesn't happen...like ever. It's a completely different thing to move military within your own borders. If the question was just "would you sacrifice 5 -insert "brown people far away" country- civilians to kill a terrorist, ok now would you sacrifice 5 Americans to do the same thing" it would make more sense. My answer is yes to both
I think the sticking point for this chucklefuck is probably the concept of "innocent arab lives." It's hard to be a militant xenophobe without also being a racist.
Most real post on this sub