And Now This Word from Outer Space

your only LOGICAL choice is to nuke your neighbor edition:

Here’s an analogy I’ve designed. I’m interested in any critical opinion on the logic:

1. Suppose, your neighbor hates you and has a beautiful kind wife.
2. Suppose his hobby is raising a lot of rattlesnakes in his backyard.
3. Suppose there is no fence between your yard and his and there is no way to build an effective barrier.
4. Suppose he has threatened to kill you with his rattlesnakes and there’s deep grass all around your house...
5. Suppose you realize that eventually his rattlesnakes WILL kill you.

WHAT WOULD YOU DO? __________

a) Do you blow up his house including him and all the rattlesnakes and his innocent/beautiful wife?

b) Or do you wait until your certain future of death by rattlesnakes?

Clearly, it’s NOT wise for you to wait for your certain death, so your only LOGICAL choice is to nuke your neighbor.

Your dilemma is you that know that there will be innocent casualties (e.g. his beautiful/innocent wife would die in the blast), but you will not be killed in the future by him and you will rid the world of this evil man and his weapons.

THEREFORE, from a pure survival standpoint, wouldn’t it make more sense to nuke (with a Neutron Bomb) all of ISIS and all other evil factions in the Middle East? Unfortunately this would result in innocent casualties, but we know that it is a certainty that there WILL BE MANY innocent casualties in the Western world if we wait to be attacked. So we then the choice is distilled into do we want the innocent casualties to be theirs or ours?

Source: Ross Perot once mentioned the analogy of a rattlesnake in your backyard. I merely expanded upon the idea.

Cartoonishly reductive understanding of the Middle East provided by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)