Trump - Go To War In Somalia

[LordKiran]

How does that work?
Step 1: Don't bomb hospitals.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: ISIS rulez us all!

I think you are missing at least one step there.

It's not specifically hospitals, but rather protected targets in general.

They'll use those protected things to defeat you.

What are you going to do about gunmen with babies strapped to them?

Handle the situation incredibly delicately like a sane human being?

 

[J842P]

It's not specifically hospitals, but rather protected targets in general.

They'll use those protected things to defeat you.

What are you going to do about gunmen with babies strapped to them?

Handle the situation incredibly delicately like a sane human being?

If you act like a sane human being, then the terrorists win.

 

[Elixir]

If you act like a sane human being, then the terrorists win.

Is that how Trump is going to "defeat ISIS"? By acting totally insane?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You think sick children are choosing to put their hospitals next to weapons factories?

No. I know that sick-minded adults do this to create propaganda against the enemy. I can think of several specific examples. The Geneva convention explicitly disallows the attacking of hospitals during wartime. Combatants have abused that convention for military strategy by placing high value targets right next to them so they can call foul when they are hit by a strike.

Why does this logic stop at Americans? In a routine police hostage situation, it would make things a lot easier if we just firebombed the building and killed all the hostages along with the hostage takers hiding with them. Would you agree to something like that? If not, why be inconsistent about it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not specifically hospitals, but rather protected targets in general.

They'll use those protected things to defeat you.

What are you going to do about gunmen with babies strapped to them?

Handle the situation incredibly delicately like a sane human being?

That's a non-answer.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What are you going to do about gunmen with babies strapped to them?

Can you cite some examples of this happening?

 

[J842P]

No. I know that sick-minded adults do this to create propaganda against the enemy. I can think of several specific examples. The Geneva convention explicitly disallows the attacking of hospitals during wartime. Combatants have abused that convention for military strategy by placing high value targets right next to them so they can call foul when they are hit by a strike.

Why does this logic stop at Americans? In a routine police hostage situation, it would make things a lot easier if we just firebombed the building and killed all the hostages along with the hostage takers hiding with them. Would you agree to something like that? If not, why be inconsistent about it?

Oh, he isn't being inconsistent: "I don't have any interest in protecting non-Americans. I have no empathy for civilians caught up in wartime activity."

Say what you will, it is consistent.

 

[Derec]

What are you going to do about gunmen with babies strapped to them?

Shoot anyway, because otherwise they shoot you.

 

[LordKiran]

Handle the situation incredibly delicately like a sane human being?

That's a non-answer.

funny, everyone else seems to get it.

 

[Elixir]

That's a non-answer.

funny, everyone else seems to get it.

Maybe "handling the situation incredibly delicately" includes making a pinpoint accurate first shot, taking out the bad guy without harming the baby.
Just sayin'... one man's "delicate" is another man's ham-fisted rough handling.

 

[blastula]

Arkirk was one who refused to consider voting for Clinton for that reason, if I remember correctly.

Yeah but he never said he wanted to vote for Trump. I think he liked Sanders.

I probably came closest but Im not American, so i don't vote there.. I didn't want Australia to be dragged into another war with you guys which I still think would have been way more likely with Clinton in the White House.

iow: Will wanted Trump because Trump was friendlier to Putin and it's Putin uber alles. That's why Assad can do no wrong. By the transitive property of Putinism. when Russia and Assad drop bombs on civilians it's like bathing them in warm cookies and skittles.

 

[LordKiran]

funny, everyone else seems to get it.

Maybe "handling the situation incredibly delicately" includes making a pinpoint accurate first shot, taking out the bad guy without harming the baby.
Just sayin'... one man's "delicate" is another man's ham-fisted rough handling.

I'm still stuck on LP trying to justify the killing of uninvolved non-combatants who want nothing to do with the situation, when you know good and god damn well that if it were a nation that can bite back (Russia, G.B., Germany, ect.) LP's response would be far different.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What are you going to do about gunmen with babies strapped to them?

Can you cite some examples of this happening?

It doesn't happen because militaries understand that sometimes innocents will die in combat.

If you have a policy of not shooting if any innocents could be hurt you set yourself up for a situation like this.

For a real world related example: Hamas sometimes responds to we're-going-to-bomb-this-house warnings by sending a bunch of neighbors up onto the roof.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's a non-answer.

funny, everyone else seems to get it.

Some on the left that don't understand sometimes you have only shitty options "get" it.

The basic problem is there are two ways of looking at morality:

1) Aim for the best outcome.

2) Aim to do no evil. Many on the left hold to this latter standard--but it's a very bad standard because it doesn't look at the result.

Some years on here I set up an extreme scenario to illustrate: You're part of the assault force taking down some terrorists armed with an h-bomb. You see a baby reaching for it's bottle--that's being used to hold down a deadman switch on the bomb. You can't reach the baby in time.

Shoot, the baby dies. Don't shoot, the city dies, including the baby.

Multiple people on here said they would take the don't-shoot path--thus sacrificing the city so they wouldn't have done evil.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe "handling the situation incredibly delicately" includes making a pinpoint accurate first shot, taking out the bad guy without harming the baby.
Just sayin'... one man's "delicate" is another man's ham-fisted rough handling.

I'm still stuck on LP trying to justify the killing of uninvolved non-combatants who want nothing to do with the situation, when you know good and god damn well that if it were a nation that can bite back (Russia, G.B., Germany, ect.) LP's response would be far different.

If you don't kill them how many non-combatants will they kill?

 

[untermensche]

funny, everyone else seems to get it.

Some on the left that don't understand sometimes you have only shitty options "get" it.

The basic problem is there are two ways of looking at morality:

1) Aim for the best outcome.

2) Aim to do no evil. Many on the left hold to this latter standard--but it's a very bad standard because it doesn't look at the result.

Some years on here I set up an extreme scenario to illustrate: You're part of the assault force taking down some terrorists armed with an h-bomb. You see a baby reaching for it's bottle--that's being used to hold down a deadman switch on the bomb. You can't reach the baby in time.

Shoot, the baby dies. Don't shoot, the city dies, including the baby.

Multiple people on here said they would take the don't-shoot path--thus sacrificing the city so they wouldn't have done evil.

Give me a fucking break!!!

Get out of the comic books and into the real world.

Sure, nuclear terrorism is highly likely.

But after a certain point nobody will stop it.

Not even Kiefer Sutherland.

 

[KeepTalking]

How does that work?
Step 1: Don't bomb hospitals.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: ISIS rulez us all!

I think you are missing at least one step there.

It's not specifically hospitals, but rather protected targets in general.

Okay, so amend step 1 to include the protected target of your choice, school, daycare, whatever.

They'll use those protected things to defeat you.

That does not answer the question implicit in step 2. How will they use those protected things to put us under their thumb? Are they going to treat their sick and wounded to our death, educate their children to our subjugation, daycare the shit out of us?

What are you going to do about gunmen with babies strapped to them?

Turn the page and find out how Captain America outwits him, because that is a fantasy situation.

 

[LordKiran]

funny, everyone else seems to get it.

Some on the left that don't understand sometimes you have only shitty options "get" it.[1]

The basic problem is there are two ways of looking at morality:

1) Aim for the best outcome.

2) Aim to do no evil. Many on the left hold to this latter standard--but it's a very bad standard because it doesn't look at the result.

Some years on here I set up an extreme scenario to illustrate: You're part of the assault force taking down some terrorists armed with an h-bomb. You see a baby reaching for it's bottle--that's being used to hold down a deadman switch on the bomb. You can't reach the baby in time.

Shoot, the baby dies. Don't shoot, the city dies, including the baby. [2]

Multiple people on here said they would take the don't-shoot path--thus sacrificing the city so they wouldn't have done evil.

1. Why, because you say so? Are you under the impression that your baseless assertions are going to be taken at face value when nothing about this conversation has given you any reason to think that?

2. That's a very clumsily constructed hypothetical. If you're going to argue with a hypothetical scenario, the least you could do is make it plausible. When the stated scenario is implausible that allows you to construct any inane and asinine set of circumstances you like where one's normal logic or ethical standard might not apply. "SHOOT THE BABY OR AMERICA GETS ALL ITS CITIES NUKES OH NO WHAT DO YOU DOOOOO!?!?!?!"

I could just as easily ask you "There's the leader of a terrorist organization. You can kill him, but if you do he'll blow up ALL THE WORLD'S ORPHANAGES AND PUPPY HOSPITALS OH GOD WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?"

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some on the left that don't understand sometimes you have only shitty options "get" it.

The basic problem is there are two ways of looking at morality:

1) Aim for the best outcome.

2) Aim to do no evil. Many on the left hold to this latter standard--but it's a very bad standard because it doesn't look at the result.

Some years on here I set up an extreme scenario to illustrate: You're part of the assault force taking down some terrorists armed with an h-bomb. You see a baby reaching for it's bottle--that's being used to hold down a deadman switch on the bomb. You can't reach the baby in time.

Shoot, the baby dies. Don't shoot, the city dies, including the baby.

Multiple people on here said they would take the don't-shoot path--thus sacrificing the city so they wouldn't have done evil.

Give me a fucking break!!!

Get out of the comic books and into the real world.

Sure, nuclear terrorism is highly likely.

But after a certain point nobody will stop it.

Not even Kiefer Sutherland.

Of course it's extreme, I was trying to come up with the most lopsided case I could imagine.

The point is multiple people on here still chose the don't-shoot option.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some on the left that don't understand sometimes you have only shitty options "get" it.[1]

The basic problem is there are two ways of looking at morality:

1) Aim for the best outcome.

2) Aim to do no evil. Many on the left hold to this latter standard--but it's a very bad standard because it doesn't look at the result.

Some years on here I set up an extreme scenario to illustrate: You're part of the assault force taking down some terrorists armed with an h-bomb. You see a baby reaching for it's bottle--that's being used to hold down a deadman switch on the bomb. You can't reach the baby in time.

Shoot, the baby dies. Don't shoot, the city dies, including the baby. [2]

Multiple people on here said they would take the don't-shoot path--thus sacrificing the city so they wouldn't have done evil.

1. Why, because you say so? Are you under the impression that your baseless assertions are going to be taken at face value when nothing about this conversation has given you any reason to think that?

2. That's a very clumsily constructed hypothetical. If you're going to argue with a hypothetical scenario, the least you could do is make it plausible. When the stated scenario is implausible that allows you to construct any inane and asinine set of circumstances you like where one's normal logic or ethical standard might not apply. "SHOOT THE BABY OR AMERICA GETS ALL ITS CITIES NUKES OH NO WHAT DO YOU DOOOOO!?!?!?!"

I could just as easily ask you "There's the leader of a terrorist organization. You can kill him, but if you do he'll blow up ALL THE WORLD'S ORPHANAGES AND PUPPY HOSPITALS OH GOD WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?"

You're making my point here. You're unwilling to address a situation where there are only very bad choices.