By that logic if we drone strike a school shooter, the children who die in the drone strike are not intended targets. It’s actually the fault of the school shooter, not the state, that those children died in a drone strike. And that would be incredibly ridiculous, of course it’s the state at fault for killing those children. They did the drone strike.
What are you talking about? I’m sure analogy sounded good in your head, but it only indicates you understand nothing about a military operation.
In a civilian context you don’t need to first invade a country so you can have boots on the ground so you can send someone into the school. Invading a country will result in a huge number of civilian casualties before you can send soldiers into that school to take out the target. Is that what you want?
There is basically no probability that you’re sending soldiers into an ambush, there’s no probability that the school is rigged to explode as soon as the soldier opens the door when it’s a school shooting.
It’s actually more the opposite. Terrorists have been known to blow up schools do you understand that? So if you have just one opportunity to take out that terrorist and you don’t do it, and next week that same terrorist blows up a school and 50 children die, did you make the right decision?
These kinds of scenarios are a constant trolley cart problem. No matter what you do, civilians are going to die. You’re just ignorantly calling the guy operating the track switch of genocide triggers the switch and you also accuse him of genocide if he doesn’t trigger the switch, you’re just someone accusing everyone of genocide constantly which means that word doesn’t mean anything anymore. That only benefits the people that actually commit genocide.
By that logic if we drone strike a school shooter, the children who die in the drone strike are not intended targets. It’s actually the fault of the school shooter, not the state, that those children died in a drone strike. And that would be incredibly ridiculous, of course it’s the state at fault for killing those children. They did the drone strike.
What are you talking about? I’m sure analogy sounded good in your head, but it only indicates you understand nothing about a military operation.
In a civilian context you don’t need to first invade a country so you can have boots on the ground so you can send someone into the school. Invading a country will result in a huge number of civilian casualties before you can send soldiers into that school to take out the target. Is that what you want?
There is basically no probability that you’re sending soldiers into an ambush, there’s no probability that the school is rigged to explode as soon as the soldier opens the door when it’s a school shooting.
It’s actually more the opposite. Terrorists have been known to blow up schools do you understand that? So if you have just one opportunity to take out that terrorist and you don’t do it, and next week that same terrorist blows up a school and 50 children die, did you make the right decision?
These kinds of scenarios are a constant trolley cart problem. No matter what you do, civilians are going to die. You’re just ignorantly calling the guy operating the track switch of genocide triggers the switch and you also accuse him of genocide if he doesn’t trigger the switch, you’re just someone accusing everyone of genocide constantly which means that word doesn’t mean anything anymore. That only benefits the people that actually commit genocide.
True, terrorists have been known to blow up schools. Hundreds of them in fact
Yes and terrorist also fire rockets from schools too. Hundreds of them in fact.