Why hurt the innocents to stop the enemy?

[Theweirdtophat]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-isis-families-145744666.html

This is what I don't understand. The families are not the target, the enemy is. How is hurting innocents help? How can some people pretend to be good and holy if they are stooping to the enemy's level? What are they proving? That they can be just as ruthless as they are?

And yes I know innocents get hurt all the time in war. That doesn't mean you go out of your way to target innocent civilians. Civilians get caught in the crossfire but that's no excuse to mow down innocents just to get a few bad guys. It shows brutality as well as incompetence that some of those people can't defeat the enemy without hurting innocents, when the enemy can be defeated without hurting civilians.

 

[dust1n]

How is hurting innocents help?

It doesn't.

How can some people pretend to be good and holy if they are stooping to the enemy's level?

By pretending.

What are they proving?

That there stupidity has one less boundary than most stupidity.

That they can be just as ruthless as they are?

Stupid people have things to prove.

And yes I know innocents get hurt all the time in war. That doesn't mean you go out of your way to target innocent civilians. Civilians get caught in the crossfire but that's no excuse to mow down innocents just to get a few bad guys. It shows brutality as well as incompetence that some of those people can't defeat the enemy without hurting innocents, when the enemy can be defeated without hurting civilians.

Attacking civilians directly is just one step away from attacking civilians "indirectly."

 

[Skwim]

Sometimes it's necessary. Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately come to mind.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Sometimes it's necessary. Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately come to mind.

It is never necessary to hurt innocents. Those bombs were not needed to end the war, they just used it cause it was the easy way out to win the war. You see people talk tough and really believe that this is the right thing to do, yet them themselves wouldn't do it, because they know deep down it's the wrong thing to do and they were justifying it. People are trying to justify killing innocents, but you can never justify hurting innocents. You can never justify hatred either.

 

[Skwim]

It is never necessary to hurt innocents. Those bombs were not needed to end the war, they just used it cause it was the easy way out to win the war. You see people talk tough and really believe that this is the right thing to do, yet them themselves wouldn't do it, because they know deep down it's the wrong thing to do and they were justifying it. People are trying to justify killing innocents, but you can never justify hurting innocents. You can never justify hatred either.

Not going to bother explaining. Ain't worth the effort.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Not going to bother explaining. Ain't worth the effort.

Then why make a comment in the first place? Did you also think it was necessary for the Union to kill Confederate Civilians in the Civil war, too? They don't tell you that, do they? They don't tell you that quite a few Yankees went a burned buildings, killed livestock, raped women and hurt innocents. Was that all necessary? People need to stop justifying this and making excuses. The end never justifies the means.

 

[Skwim]

Then why make a comment in the first place?.

Because it's true.

The end never justifies the means.

Then exactly what does justify the means if it isn't the end?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Because it's true.

Then exactly what does justify the means if it isn't the end?

I thought you said this wasn't worth the effort. Please decide on whether you want to talk.

What's exactly true? That hurting innocents wins a war? Well I suppose you can do that to win a war but at what cost? How many innocents would you be willing to sacrifice? And how would you live with yourself? Ask yourself that. An innocent should never have to suffer just because they couldn't bother to plan properly.

I mean that the end doesn't justify the means when it comes to this. Meaning you don't sacrifice a bunch of innocents in order to establish peace and safety. The end would not justify the means there.

 

[Skwim]

I thought you said this wasn't worth the effort. Please decide on whether you want to talk.

It isn't worth my effort to explain to you why it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Discussions aren't that hard to follow if you pay attention to what's said. So pay attention,Theweirdtophat !

I mean that the end doesn't justify the means when it comes to this.

Ah ha, so you misspoke when you said "The end never justifies the means."

 

[Theweirdtophat]

It isn't worth my effort to explain to you why it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Discussions aren't that hard to follow if you pay attention to what's said. So pay attention,Theweirdtophat !

Ah ha, so you misspoke when you said "The end never justifies the means."

Please don't twist it around and exaggerate to prove your point. Which kind of shows you don't have a point. If you did, you wouldn't need to exaggerate. And you're making excuses to not explain your point by saying "I don't need to explain it to you." Which basically translates to "I have no explanation and I'm making up excuses."

I was using an example. No the end never justifies the means. Not when it comes to THIS kind of stuff. I guess I had to elaborate a little.

Having that kind of mentality allows for dangerous behavior. Look how many bad things happened because people justified it. Constantly making excuses as to why they did what they did, when they knew full well what they were doing was wrong.

 

[Skwim]

I was using an example. No the end never justifies the means. Not when it comes to THIS kind of stuff. I guess I had to elaborate a little.

Only when you want to make sense.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Only when you want to make sense.

Then please tell me how it makes any logical sense to hurt civilians in an attempt to take down the enemy. How would you even live with yourself witnessing or being a part of that? I can promise you that you would regret it sooner later. How can anyone say that innocents were hurt and they are ok with it? Ask yourself that. You never hurt an innocent no matter what.

 

[Jumi]

Does Trump not know that the "families" of Daesh are often just disbelievers who they rape and force into marriage? Or people who disagree with their views?

 

[columbus]

Then please tell me how it makes any logical sense to hurt civilians in an attempt to take down the enemy.

Here's how it makes sense to me.
If 5 people are likely to kill 100 others, and you can stop them from doing so at a cost of 50 others, killing all 55 is the moral thing to do.

It is a dangerously subjective form of moral calculations. But it exists, and ignoring such math is not an improvement.
Tom

 

[Nietzsche]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-isis-families-145744666.html

This is what I don't understand. The families are not the target, the enemy is. How is hurting innocents help? How can some people pretend to be good and holy if they are stooping to the enemy's level? What are they proving? That they can be just as ruthless as they are?

And yes I know innocents get hurt all the time in war. That doesn't mean you go out of your way to target innocent civilians. Civilians get caught in the crossfire but that's no excuse to mow down innocents just to get a few bad guys. It shows brutality as well as incompetence that some of those people can't defeat the enemy without hurting innocents, when the enemy can be defeated without hurting civilians.

To deny the enemy the ability to continue making war, break their spirit, and in their despair make them seriously consider over-throwing their government and suing for peace.

 

[columbus]

To deny the enemy the ability to continue making war, break their spirit, and in their despair make them seriously consider over-throwing their government and suing for peace.

You're such an optimist. When did that ever happen?
Tom

 

[Nietzsche]

You're such an optimist. When did that ever happen?
Tom

WW1. German Revolution.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Here's how it makes sense to me.
If 5 people are likely to kill 100 others, and you can stop them from doing so at a cost of 50 others, killing all 55 is the moral thing to do.

It is a dangerously subjective form of moral calculations. But it exists, and ignoring such math is not an improvement.
Tom

Not sure where you get your morals but killing any innocent is not moral. You never sacrifice anyone. Even if it does get the bad guys. You don't prove you are better than they are by doing the same thing.

 

[Laika]

This is what I don't understand. The families are not the target, the enemy is. How is hurting innocents help?

By targeting their families you gain leverage over them. it shatters some of their illusions of invincability because they become the victims. Of course, any "advantage" is purely temporary, as it is extremely unlikely that any jihadi worth their salt will just "give up" because "things got real". it just commits an enemy to wiping you off the face of the earth in revenge, using any method possible. They have no where left to run, no home or family to go back to- so they will try to kill you by any means necessary. The most dangerous people are the ones who have nothing left to lose.

Because that just what ISIL needs; a little extra motivation.

Killing civillians in a war, serves no purpose, other than to turn it into a war of extermination. that is a war no-one, not even ISIS can "win" as all sane definitions of victory have been disgarded with our humanity in the process.

How can some people pretend to be good and holy if they are stooping to the enemy's level?

Most don't pretend. their sense of right and wrong is completely divorced from their actions. its psychopathy presented as principle. Thats what makes them terrifying.

What are they proving? That they can be just as ruthless as they are?

Nothing. A vast empty wasteland of nothing. But the body count looks good on television for whoever is flag waving from the comfort of their living room and arms dealers will rest easy knowing the world is going to hell and their services are in demand.

 

[leibowde84]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/trump-isis-families-145744666.html

This is what I don't understand. The families are not the target, the enemy is. How is hurting innocents help? How can some people pretend to be good and holy if they are stooping to the enemy's level? What are they proving? That they can be just as ruthless as they are?

And yes I know innocents get hurt all the time in war. That doesn't mean you go out of your way to target innocent civilians. Civilians get caught in the crossfire but that's no excuse to mow down innocents just to get a few bad guys. It shows brutality as well as incompetence that some of those people can't defeat the enemy without hurting innocents, when the enemy can be defeated without hurting civilians.

Why would you think that the enemy can be defeated without the death of innocent people?