Would you kill 1 muslim child to save 80 people in a mall?
>Drone strike
>3 high value terroists preparing suicide vest
>1 innocent child
How far do we go, before we are as bad as our enemys?
Would you pull the trigger that drops the bomb?
(Mods, please do not delete. Political discussion)
Other urls found in this thread:
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>tfw spill meat on penis
"Total war"
hell yeah my nigga
She chose her fate for being fucking greedy after they bought all her bread and he ran then she turned back to her bread stand to sell it a second time.
Thats not the question. Is her life more valuable than 80 people?
Is her belonging to a community that supports terroists, justify her being killed
Yes, think of all the lives that could be saved by killing a future terrorist. That's not even counting the 80 people in the mall
Killing children to further your political goals.
Really makes you think
>Would you kill 1 muslim
Yes
Would using a drone in France to kill terroists have prevented the attacks?
Gloves are off. Not killing jihadis because they hide behind their 9 year old brides and cry that we kill "Woman and Children" is not happening any longer. I say kill more of them. Children especially. Drones would be the preferred weapon of choice right behind atomic weapons and sarin gas
I Would get 25 wahaabbi muslim women and pubically hang them. Then I would tell isis for eveyone we will hang 25 women (stop them reproducing). Then it would be there choice.
yes to all the things!
This 'all children are innocent' meme needs to die. Children can be indoctrinated into ideologies by the age of 10, and a 10 year old can strap on a vest and murder innocent people just as easily as a military aged man can. Just because they are young does not mean they are innocent. Look at the things that happen in North Africa: 13 and 14 year olds rape each other and children even younger extremely often. I would murder a hundred children raised by radical islam to save just one innocent white.
Can I only answer yes more than once? Like 1.6 billion times?
I suppose this is the future of warefare
Is this movie decent or completely blue pilled liberal garbage?
>How far do we go, before we are as bad as our enemys?
The point of them being the enemy is that you kill them. When they're all dead who cares which one of you was better? It amazes me that we're fighting this war like there's a cosmic referee keeping score of morality points. Wars should be prosecuted until the enemy psychologically collapses or is annihilated.
Its a good movie. Shows both sides of the battle
Is there something wrong with not risking the lives of actual human beings in order to exterminate pests? Do you think that snake catchers shouldn't use nets, but instead grab snakes by the head and force them into the net?
Or are you somehow romanticising warfare? War isn't pretty or glamorous like you see in movies or video games. War is horrible, and the more humanely we can do it, the better.
It's actually really good. It's one of those films that leaves you asking questions of yourself and is pretty balanced.
Wont we create more terroists than?
So what if we do? Kill them too. It's like saying, "Well if we bomb Hamburg it'll create more Nazis". That's fine, we can firebomb the rest of Germany too.
No. That is still 2th Gen Warfare, only difference to artillerie is that it now flys and the operater is not on the battlefield.
US military still struggels with 3th Gen, and their 4th Gen. WF is a joke compared with russia an china. About the 5th no American seems to have ever thought on.
Btw OP, killing muslims is not a moral question but a question about the right caliber. For one child I would go with 50bmg desu
Fuck off lefty abo and go sniff some gas
>Would you kill 1 muslim child to save 80 people in a mall?
Without a doubt. I would wipe out everyone who subscribed to moslem ideologies to save that little girl who was killed in the Nice France attacks.
What is 5th generation warfare? I'm familiar with the others but never heard of 5th
It's petrol m8, not gas.
Why not kill all 81?
And unsurprisingly, the Anglo gets the point of war. We fight to make them die. Full fucking stop. All this moral faffing about is why we suck. Thanks, Britbro.
>War is horrible, and the more humanely we can do it, the better.
If it's made humane then it's made a viable option. War needs to be so hellish that no one would contemplate it. The problem with the war on terror is that it's really humane by the standards of just about any war in human history: the cost to Muslims of waging is a cost that they're willing to accept. It's not sufficiently inhumane to give them pause for thought.
Killing is never justified; neither is living.
Cheers bro.
Because the 80 are presumably westeners.
where is the button to fire? HIT THAT MOFO RAPID FIRE!
fuck them bitches that hate the west, that kid isnt innocent, just another accident waiting to happen from their brainwashed culture of indoctrination into the hatred of mankind itself.
>Wont we create more terroists than?
kill em all moron.... day one stuff...
...
With this argumentation we should have nuked London in WW2 (if we didn't stop the nuclear program)
Glass the whole area or don't do anything at all.
War is a political tool to compel the enemy to do what you want, not a race to the highest kill count.
The only good war is a short war. Brutal and bloody as you have to be, but make it short.
the only responsibility we have is towards our own people.
Don't even need the to save 80 people at the mall part
>Wont we create more terroists than?
If you kill your enemies, they win.
But if you kill all of your enemies, you win.
Future terrorist.
"I just want to sell bread to feed my senpai"
>they hate our freedoms :DDD
Found the reason the rest of the world hates us
>If you kill your enemies, they win
so france won ww2 by surrendering. sneaky frogs had it right all along.
I'd kill 80 muslim children to save 1 American in a mall.
Yes, you should. If you had decided that you were willing to fight a war then you should have accepted the necessity of doing everything necessary to win, including nuking London. If you're only willing to fight your enemy up to a certain moral point then you have to accept the possibility that you will be defeated if your enemy is willing to go beyond that moral point. In which case, why are you fighting?
We didn't say, "Well, we willing to fight the Nazis, but only up to the point of limited bombing. If we cause too many civilian deaths, then we'll stop and allow the Nazis to win" and we didn't say this because it's retarded. As soon as you've made the choice to destroy the enemy the methodology becomes irrelevant.
Amen.
>nuking London
Wew Lad
Id kill 80 muslim children
I would kill 80 muslim children to save a single white American.
Within the dictates of the principle of economy of force, of course.
Well you didn't, and look how that turned out.
It's deluded to pretend that kind of situation represents the actual moral problems we have in Middle East wars.
We kill 30 innocent people in a single attack. We caused the deaths of a million or more innocent people in the past decade.
It's stupid to say that we never intentionally shot any innocent person or bombed an innocent person without it also being a military target. Who cares? The people who get killed don't care, their families don't. We're the only ones who benefit from that, by feeling better and pretending to have a moral high ground.
These silly questions (would you kill 1 to save 100) even if such situations do happen are just a way of minimizing the moral damage to us, pretending it's a difficult question with no real answer, but avoiding what the actual question should be: our entire involvement and the failure of the overall plan.
For a war to be legal the use of force has to be proportionate and not excessive.
Is kill a million Muslim children to save 1 white person in a mall.
Fuck it, I'd do it for FREE
Nip post best post
Only right answer.
>Would you kill 1 muslim child
stopped reading there. yes
>war
>legal
What the fuck is this nonsense? What place do the laws of a nation have in a battle against another? When loss equates to destruction, what place do laws have restricting how one may win?
pulling the trigger on every sand nigger all day every day.
>Found the reason the rest of the world hates us
If they hate us then their our enemy and can die with anyone else who wants to kill us. its not a circle of violence when you just wipe out the opposing force, spoiler warning thats what war is newfag.
What does that even mean? Like I said, who is this celestial referee deciding which plays are "legal" and which are "illegal"? When did war become a sport? Inter arma enim silent leges.
Killing few to save many is always the morally correct choice. Don't be a emotional faggot.
This guy gets it.
>Would you kill 1 muslim
Why stop at just one?
All these movies have ever done is make it look like the West is struggling with the decisions that have caused a tremendous amount of suffering and death in a dozen different countries.
The reality is nobody cares. If any of you support all the misery, destruction, and death that's happened since 9/11, you should know that liberals have been your biggest unwitting supporters. They've always helped you lie to yourselves about good you are so you can continue to commit atrocities with a clear conscience.
I'd kill them all. Fuck Muslims.
I don't need 80 endangered people to kill 1 muslim kid
I wish i'd have been born in Amerika with you as my neighbour..
Once muslim child is not worth one american fingernail!
I'd glass the middle east for almost no reason senpai
Guess which enemy we've been fighting for over a decade that has no such thing?
The real question is: what percentage of people in the mall would need to be white in order to avoid hitting the mall?
Obviously, if the mall is 100% nonwhite you'd choose its destruction, but what if it's 5% white? Or 50%?
Since whites are about 13-15% of the population of the planet, I'm going to value the average white life as 6 times the value of the average nonwhite. This would reflect the break-even point. That is, with the goal of preserving the white race, sacrificing 1 white life to kill 6 shitskins would represent breaking even, since they outnumber us 6:1.
So I'll say that if at least 12 of the people in the mall are human, you kill the mudslime child. If 11 or fewer of the people in the mall are human, you hit the mall.
Well this particular mall is in Nairobi.
then they would just reproduce with german and swedish women xD
Then yeah, it's a safe bet to hit the mall or to allow it to be hit. It's the best outcome for whites.
Is this supposed to be a hard question? Where's the downside? If the child is Muslim, they are the enemy as well.
Liberal garbage. I was literally screaming at my laptop screen asking to fucking press the button and end the movie.
t. Indian.
Yeah, bc their is no whites in Africa
>autism speaks
I would like them all to receive drone strikes t b h op
Yep in a heartbeat
Bomb them even harder too
I remember japs doing suicide attacks on us and being oh so ready to fight until the very last man
We didn't fuck around with them and now look at them. An ally and they make tons of laptops and cameras and keyboards and cars and shit.
Maybe if we firebombed medina and dropped some nukes on raqqa they'd shape up too
im not saying bombing people makes them better but if you're going to fight someone if you aren't completely dedicated to fighting them guess what
you will lose
your hesitancy with even using half measures is why we will never another war
i would pay to kill all the muslims
>mudslime children are going to be little dindus forever and won't never grow
You're on the wrong site buddy
>Would you kill one Muslim child to save 80 people
Yes
>Would you kill one child to save 80 people
Yes
>Would you kill one child to save 2 people of equal or greater value
Yes
I don't even understand the dilemma here.
This!
Who said there are no whites, you fucking retard?
Whites are not more than 14% of the population of Nairobi. Therefore, with no other information, it hitting the mall is the best choice since you are statistically unlikely to kill more than 11 whites, when there are only 80 people.
Obviously if intel indicates that the number of white people exceeds my stated threshold you would adjust the plans accordingly.
Die a fucking fire.
If you kill 1 person to save 2 people, you become individually responsible for the murder of the 1 person. That death is on your conscience and is your responsibility.
If you instead do nothing and let 2 people die, you have done nothing wrong. Failing to intercede does not make you responsible for the deaths, as responsibility comes from causation. Whatever caused the deaths of the 2 people is then at fault, and you are morally in the clear.
>Would you kill 1 muslim child
Yes
They only "make tons of laptops and cameras and keyboards and cars and shit" because we played a direct role in starting up their modern economy.
What the actual fuck are you even arguing about?
Several high value targets are planning a suicide bombing on a mall.
Collateral damage is minimal, with the exception of a young child.
Instead of using British SAS commandos to house raid and possible capture terroists. The decision from command is to fire a hellfire missle from a drone.
Do you kill the kid with the terroists?
Or do you ignore orders and stand down.
No decision to bomb a mall in Nairobi is optional. Not even in your dellusional sick fucking mind
Causation can be derived from inaction when you have the ability to prevent something but do not
you're just playing mind games to justify your decision when either way you are intrinsically involved in either outcome
>Failing to intercede does not make you responsible for the deaths, as responsibility comes from causation.
It is also an act if you do not act, like denial of assistance.
i would kill 80 m,uslim children to save one person in a mall
You are officially the most ignorant user on Sup Forums
There is no option to bomb a mall in Nairobi. Only to save it, by drone strike on Al shibab terroists. With a gr8 chance of civilian casualties in the market place.
>Would you kill 1 muslim child to save 80 people in a mall?
Did you read the fucking OP? It's literally a choice between 1 muslim child or a mall with 80 people. I clearly explained my choice and my reasoning.
I'm not going to go watch some 90 minute piece of Jewish propaganda so you can get your shekels. I'm answering the explicit question that this thread asks. Go fuck yourself to death with your nigger dildo collection.
No, it absolutely cannot be derived from that, moron.
If it could, then by not selling everything you own that exceeds your barest needs, and laboring to your maximum ability to generate as much extra money as possible, you have become personally responsible for ALL moral wrongs on the entire planet that could have been alleviated by a sum of money equal to or less than the differences between your basic needs and maximum potential net worth.