I was going to argue against this, but it’s basically an economic question of if they should be held for life or executed, assuming that “slaughtering” takes place after a trial (excluding any violence necessary for liberating captive populations).
But you definitely need to identify lynch mob leaders, squeeze them for information, and then kill them about as quickly as you can. Those people are unlikely to do anything but harm in the long term unless you have material security and a genuinely sophisticated program for rehabilitating people.
But you definitely need to identify lynch mob leaders, squeeze them for information, and then kill them about as quickly as you can. Those people are unlikely to do anything but harm in the long term unless you have material security and a genuinely sophisticated program for rehabilitating people.
You need more than that. These people would become warriors in a new gladio. Every single one of them that you release would need to be monitored for the remainder of their lives, you can not trust rehabilitation alone.
Sure, I guess it could be viewed as indefinite parole. I’m sure some of these bastards were recruited into Operation Bloodstone or some equivalent.
My point was just that you generally don’t need to kill people if conditions are stable enough that you can hold a trial for them. Short of wiping iut humanity, you can’t kill your way into not having an “at risk of counterrevolutionary activity” population because that killing itself provides a motive to those that survive to become counterrevolutionaries, whether in siblings, children, friends, neighbors, fellow churchgoers, or people not personally connected but watching from afar and going “that sure is a lot of killing,” or “how do I know that this many people are beyond saving?” or “how many more rounds until I am next?” It’s a very common response.
There are many valid reasons to kill people, but then stick to those reasons and not this, which is not a valid reason.
I was going to argue against this, but it’s basically an economic question of if they should be held for life or executed, assuming that “slaughtering” takes place after a trial (excluding any violence necessary for liberating captive populations).
But you definitely need to identify lynch mob leaders, squeeze them for information, and then kill them about as quickly as you can. Those people are unlikely to do anything but harm in the long term unless you have material security and a genuinely sophisticated program for rehabilitating people.
You need more than that. These people would become warriors in a new gladio. Every single one of them that you release would need to be monitored for the remainder of their lives, you can not trust rehabilitation alone.
Sure, I guess it could be viewed as indefinite parole. I’m sure some of these bastards were recruited into Operation Bloodstone or some equivalent.
My point was just that you generally don’t need to kill people if conditions are stable enough that you can hold a trial for them. Short of wiping iut humanity, you can’t kill your way into not having an “at risk of counterrevolutionary activity” population because that killing itself provides a motive to those that survive to become counterrevolutionaries, whether in siblings, children, friends, neighbors, fellow churchgoers, or people not personally connected but watching from afar and going “that sure is a lot of killing,” or “how do I know that this many people are beyond saving?” or “how many more rounds until I am next?” It’s a very common response.
There are many valid reasons to kill people, but then stick to those reasons and not this, which is not a valid reason.