3 ms·
The question isn't if you're attacked and the attacker hides behind an innocent bystander and does nothing. It's if you're attacked, the attacker hides behind
by edanm 2y ago
The question isn't if you're attacked and the attacker hides behind an innocent bystander and does nothing.
It's if you're attacked, the attacker hides behind an innocent bystander and continues attacking you, while at the same time he's holding your kid hostage and torturing him.
In that situation, I think most moral and legal systems say it is ok to risk the innocent bystander to save your child, if there is no other way to get him back.
(Of course, this isn't a perfect analogy either. Hamas is still holding a 100 hostages while hiding behind innocent people, but it's very much arguable whether "there is no other way to get the hostages back" at this point, among other things.)
- omnimus 2y agoPerfect analogy except instead of killing the attacker and bystander to get the hostage you also take out 40 other bystanders in 200m radius and just to be sure level every building in that radius to the ground.
- edanm 2y agoOf course a simplistic analogy won't be good, on either side. In reality it's not a lone attacker, it's a paramilitary that is also the governing body of Gaza. It's not like a cartel invading Texas - it's like the Mexican government sending its army to invade Texas, then hiding its army amongst civilians. And it's like this is happening in the broader context of the Mexican government believing that the US has stolen its land and trampled on its rights for the last 75 years. No analogy is perfect.