the Manbij dillema : bomb the hostages or face terror bombs?

[bicicleur 2]

lately Manbij was conquered on ISIS

ISIS fled using a human shield to stop the alliance from bombing them

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37129408

the alliance did not bomb them, letting many ISIS fighters escape incognito near the Turkish border

yesterday there was the suicide bombing in Gaziantep, in Turkey, nearby Manbij in Syria

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/injured-blast-hits-wedding-hall-gaziantep-160820204150494.html

I believe there is a clear connection

what should have been done? should the alliance have bombed the ISIS troops with some casualties among the hostages?
I fear the casualties by infiltrated ISIS terrorists may be much higher now

the world is a much more horrible place than most of us westerners can understand

 

[Tomenable]

the world is a much more horrible place than most of us westerners can understand

Oh come on, there are just minor cultural differences (and of course all cultures are equally good, saying otherwise would be racist):

 

[Tomenable]

the Manbij dillema : bomb the hostages or face terror bombs?

The prevailing opinion in legal doctrine and practice is that you can't quantify the value of human lifes because it is the highest value of all, and the value of human life is infinite. Both the life of every single human and of all humans altogether have infinite worth. So lifes of 100 people are worth neither more nor less than lifes of 30 people, but they have equal - absolute - worth. That's why the choice should be not to risk killing the hostages, and face the risk of terror bombs instead (we can't deem these hostages as less worthy of living than potential victims of hypothetical terror bombs).

But - you know - these are Western humanitarian values, created by European civilization during the last centuries.

And in conftrontation with radical Islamic barbarism these values just don't work very well, unfortunately.

==============================

Assuming that you must choose between saving one group or another, and you can't save both of them - then you can choose to save either. But in this case only one group is in real danger of immediate death, while the threat of terror bombs in the future is not a certain thing.

So in this case the morally right and legally right thing to do is to try saving the hostages.

 

[bicicleur 2]

The prevailing opinion in legal doctrine and practice is that you can't quantify the value of human lifes because it is the highest value of all, and the value of human life is infinite. Both the life of every single human and of all humans altogether have infinite worth. So lifes of 100 people are worth neither more nor less than lifes of 30 people, but they have equal - absolute - worth.

yet human lives are in oversupply
there are 7.4 billion people on earth and that is quite enough

let's hypothesize there is a new planet earth with plenty of food and resources and no diseases
put a healthy young man and a healthy young woman on that planet and let them have fun with each other
after 500 years this new planet earth will be overpopulated again with 7.4 billion people

so, I ask you, why is every single life so precious?

I think this is a taboo discussion ..

 

[Angela]

lately Manbij was conquered on ISIS

ISIS fled using a human shield to stop the alliance from bombing them

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37129408

the alliance did not bomb them, letting many ISIS fighters escape incognito near the Turkish border

yesterday there was the suicide bombing in Gaziantep, in Turkey, nearby Manbij in Syria

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/08/injured-blast-hits-wedding-hall-gaziantep-160820204150494.html

I believe there is a clear connection

what should have been done? should the alliance have bombed the ISIS troops with some casualties among the hostages?
I fear the casualties by infiltrated ISIS terrorists may be much higher now

the world is a much more horrible place than most of us westerners can understand

In some cases it's pretty clear cut: I know that there was an order on 9/11 to bomb the plane that later crashed into a field. I believe that's the standing order now: if a plane looks like it's going to deliberately be crashed into a population center, bomb it in mid-air.

A reconstruction of events on Flight 93, based on Todd Beamer's phone conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7arO6mTs5W0

Maybe that's a clearer choice, though.

I still wouldn't want to be the one making the decision.

@Tomenable,

Oh, there are differences between cultures, all right. It's just that you wouldn't much care for what I would point out about yours or those of some other European countries. I'll leave it to your imagination what I mean.

 

[bicicleur 2]

In some cases it's pretty clear cut: I know that there was an order on 9/11 to bomb the plane that later crashed into a field. I believe that's the standing order now: if a plane looks like it's going to deliberately be crashed into a population center, bomb it in mid-air.

A reconstruction of events on Flight 93, based on Todd Beamer's phone conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7arO6mTs5W0

Maybe that's a clearer choice, though.

I still wouldn't want to be the one making the decision.

@Tomenable,

Oh, there are differences between cultures, all right. It's just that you wouldn't much care for what I would point out about yours or those of some other European countries. I'll leave it to your imagination what I mean.

indeed it was more clear cut
and there was not so much discussion about it afterwards

but if they had bombed these ISIS fighters and their hostages
I think there would have been general outrage all around the world

and the plane, it was shot in the US
I doubt the Europeans would have had the nerve to do so

 

[Tomenable]

yet human lives are in oversupply
there are 7.4 billion people on earth

Change in global population (in millions) between years 1938 and 2013:

Continent ------------- population 1938 --- population 2013 -- (percent increase)

Asia ---------------------------- 1144.6 --------- 4298.7 ------------ (+ 276%)
Europe -------------------------- 529.0 ---------- 742.5 ------------- (+ 40%)
Americas ----------------------- 263.8 ---------- 972.0 ------------- (+ 268%)
Africa --------------------------- 148.2 ---------- 1110.6 ------------ (+ 649%)
Oceania ------------------------- 10.5 ----------- 38.3 --------------- (+ 265%)

Total --------------------------- 2096.1 --------- 7162.1 ------------- (+ 242%)

 

[Angela]

indeed it was more clear cut
and there was not so much discussion about it afterwards
but if they had bombed these ISIS fighters and their hostages
I think there would have been general outrage all around the world
Reply With Quote
and the plane, it was shot in the US
I doubt the Europeans would have had the nerve to do so

Flight 93 wasn't bombed; it presumably crashed during the struggle when some of the male passengers tried to take back control of the plane. It was later released that they would have bombed it regardless. No, there's no discussion, really, about that decision or the standing order for the future. It's a simple matter of weighing up the loss of life.

The difference in your example is that it's not immediate. We can't know for a certainty what these specific ISIS fighters will do in the future. I wouldn't be comfortable with just mowing these people down.

It's a balancing act. You can't take it so far that you cripple your troops, which is what I believe the Obama administration has done to U.S. troops in the Middle East. On the other hand, you don't want rogue killers out there.

Something similar is going on with law enforcement in the U.S. If a policeman shooting someone who is not only armed but is also pointing a gun at him is going to result in rioting and calls for the policeman's head on a stick, how much policing can be done at all? What are we supposed to do? Let the mayhem continue with no attempt to impose law and order, only do it when it spills over into the suburbs? What?

 

[Tomenable]

so, I ask you, why is every single life so precious?

It works only in situations where you need to choose between killing one group of hostages in order to save some other groups that may potentially be endangered as well, or trying to save the hostages while risking that some other groups might die.

In such situations you can't arbitrarily judge that saving a group of 100 is better than saving another of 60.

Actually if terrorists kill 100 instead of 60 then it will reduce the Earth's overpopulation more.

 

[Tomenable]

Angela,

I believe that's the standing order now: if a plane looks like it's going to deliberately be crashed into a population center, bomb it in mid-air.

As long as there is a real chance that the passengers may take back control of the plane from the terrorists, then you should give them their chance to survive. As I wrote, in legal doctrine and practice, there is no difference between 100 lifes and 10,000 lifes.

There might be a future Nobel laureate among those 100 on the plane rather than among those 10,000 on the ground.

 

[bicicleur 2]

something strange happened in 1982

a sovjet pilot ejected himself above Poland while his MIG was flying west
the unmanned plane was intercepted and accompanied by 2 Nato fighter jets to shoot it in case it would fall on a big city, while hoping the plane would make it till above the sea
it ran out of fuel some 20 km from the place were I live and fell on a house
unfortunately there was a student in this house preparing his examns
that was the only victim

I had just finished my military service then, and I was bragging with my friend, this wouldn't have happened if we were still in the army

 

[Angela]

Angela,



As long as there is a real chance that the passengers may take back control of the plane from the terrorists, then you should give them their chance to survive. As I wrote, in legal doctrine and practice, there is no difference between 100 lifes and 10,000 lifes.

There might be a future Nobel laureate among those 100 on the plane rather than among those 10,000 on the ground.

Oh please. There might be a pedophile or a serial killer too. This attitude would make sense only if you knew that a take over attempt was possible and underway. Nine times out of ten or more you have no idea what's going on inside that plane. We only know about what happened on Flight 93 in hindsight and only because that guy happened to call someone. If a plane full of three hundred people is going to crash into a populated city and potentially kill thousands, you shoot down the plane, period. The plane might also have a dirty bomb or anthrax on board or goodness knows what else. You don't take chances like that; if you did you'd be abdicating your responsibility as government officials.

Like I said, I don't want to be the one doing it but there's absolutely no question about what has to be done.

I can't believe there's even a discussion about it. There was absolutely no push back when the directive was announced. The logic is self-evident.

It's totally different from a situation where you have to guess whether the person holding the hostages is going to do something evil at some unknown time in the future.