←back to thread

350 points tepidandroid | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
whiddershins ◴[] No.21025779[source]
I wonder why, even though we generally try to be skeptical of the news, I’m not seeing many comments here that question whether what this article is saying is even accurate.

How exactly does the reporter know which people are IS fighters? Is there some notion that militants don’t ever also farm?

Also in these comments there seems to be a huge double standard. The idea the United States might accidentally kill some civilians is somehow morally outrageous, but the regular and deliberate targeting of civilians by the Taliban and the IS as they attempt to completely destabilize the Afghan government is taken as somehow normal?

replies(10): >>21025897 #>>21025947 #>>21025967 #>>21026019 #>>21026033 #>>21026077 #>>21026099 #>>21026126 #>>21026235 #>>21026606 #
1. frobozz ◴[] No.21026077[source]
The "Good Guys" are fighting the "Bad Guys" because the "Bad Guys" do "Bad Guy Stuff".

It is taken as normal that the "Bad Guys" are "Bad". When they do "Bad Guy Stuff", it is further justification for the "Good Guys" continuing to target them. "Normal" does not mean "OK", it just means that it is what is expected - "Bad Guys are Bad" is not news.

It is morally outrageous when the "Good Guys" do "Bad Guy Stuff", because it calls into question the whole "We are good, they are bad" story that the "Good folk at home" are told. How can we be the "Good Guys" if we are killing innocents?

It also reinforces the "We are good, they are bad" story that the "Bad Guys" are selling their folk at home. When the "Great Satan" kills your innocent friends and family when they are at work picking pine nuts, or at a wedding, it becomes easier to encourage you to take up arms against them.