If the M-16 delivers the message, the F-16 delivers it better
man, is my life uncomplicated. for the most part, the decisions i make on a daily basis revolve around buying gas now or on the way back, small, medium, or large coffee, chicken or beef.
imagine having to make decisions that could and would affect the lives of everyone around you. not decisions like raising taxes, but the real deal life or death decisions.
there is an article in sunday's Washinton Post that presents the moral dilemma facing the leaders in isreal. do we bomb a known terrorist, and kill innocents to save our own people, or do we let own citizens suffer in some not too future date?
the article is long, but interesting. to get a little background on the people making these kinds of decisions fleshes them out, makes them human and not some robotic killing entity in a far away land.
the isrealis lost an opportunity to wipe out the whole top ruling group of hamas, and actually blew the operation, strengthening hamas because they faced a moral dilemma and backed down to a half measure.
what is the lesson? the current head of the hamas ruling party in Pali was one of the terrorists targeted. he escaped because the isrealis took a half step. it only made hamas more popular and stronger as in "allah saved them" from the jews.
how do people make these kinds of decisions? how do you weigh the morality of saving 20 people by killing 2 or 15 innocent bystanders to get at the bad actor.
it must make sleeping very difficult.
i'm glad i don't have to make these types of decisions. i would probably shock acquaintances that think i'd say "f*uck em, get the bad guys". i don't know what i would do. any choice i made, unless it was a clear case of no collateral casualties would be more than i would ever want to make. unless my family was directly in danger. in that case "f*uck 'em, drop a big bomb because i want no chance of mistakes letting one of those rat bastards missing his chance at 72 virgins"
hat tip to chap for the lead.
imagine having to make decisions that could and would affect the lives of everyone around you. not decisions like raising taxes, but the real deal life or death decisions.
there is an article in sunday's Washinton Post that presents the moral dilemma facing the leaders in isreal. do we bomb a known terrorist, and kill innocents to save our own people, or do we let own citizens suffer in some not too future date?
the article is long, but interesting. to get a little background on the people making these kinds of decisions fleshes them out, makes them human and not some robotic killing entity in a far away land.
the isrealis lost an opportunity to wipe out the whole top ruling group of hamas, and actually blew the operation, strengthening hamas because they faced a moral dilemma and backed down to a half measure.
what is the lesson? the current head of the hamas ruling party in Pali was one of the terrorists targeted. he escaped because the isrealis took a half step. it only made hamas more popular and stronger as in "allah saved them" from the jews.
how do people make these kinds of decisions? how do you weigh the morality of saving 20 people by killing 2 or 15 innocent bystanders to get at the bad actor.
it must make sleeping very difficult.
i'm glad i don't have to make these types of decisions. i would probably shock acquaintances that think i'd say "f*uck em, get the bad guys". i don't know what i would do. any choice i made, unless it was a clear case of no collateral casualties would be more than i would ever want to make. unless my family was directly in danger. in that case "f*uck 'em, drop a big bomb because i want no chance of mistakes letting one of those rat bastards missing his chance at 72 virgins"
hat tip to chap for the lead.
posted by bothenook at 08:04
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home