So what would the OP do?
You never know, but I see a lot of positives.
No Holocaust, therefore no Israel, therefore no implacable enmity for the US from Muslims, therefore no 9-11.
And yes, I’m well aware that none of those follow inevitably. It’s just one rosy scenario. But I do think no Hitler –> no Israel. Read the MacDonald White Paper of 1939.
9-11 wasn’t about Israel, though. If killing Hitler prevents it, I propose it’s more likely because the USSR does not arise as a military rival to the U.S., thus they either don’t invade Afghanistan in 1979, or they do and the U.S. doesn’t care, hence no Mujaheddin, no Osama Bin Laden as war hero/leader/Al-Qaeda chieftain.
Amazing how many people say that. This would seem to disagree with you:
That’s because it’s true.
No, it really doesn’t. Any more than someone would be wrong if they said “9/11 wasn’t about Somalia”. That America doesn’t allow the Israelis to be pushed into the sea is just one of Bin Laden’s ranting points, and even then they’re generally couched in some truly insane distortions of reality.
But even with that being the case, most rational people can tell the difference between causes and justifications. We don’t say “abortion clinic bombings and assassinations of abortion doctors are due to Roe V Wade”, we say “they’re due to deranged killers and thugs.” We don’t say “lynchings are due to the end of slavery and Jim Crow” we say “they’re due to murderous racism”. We don’t say “gay bashing is due to them coming out of the closet” we say “it’s due to homophobic thugs.” Unfortunately when politics get involved some people change the formula, and the fact that murderous lunatics kill people becomes a vindication of certain political beliefs, or an indictment of others. Fortunately, however, we don’t allow terrorists to set our policy.
In any case, Al Quaeda attacking the US was no more “about” any rational reason than John Lennon’s assassination was “about” the writings of J.D. Salinger.
I dunno, I get the impression that Bin Laden blaming Jews and Israel (and American support for Jews in Israel) is an attempt to get other Muslim nations on his side, whereas if he focused on just being pissed off about Americans in Saudi Arabia, nobody outside of Saudi Arabia would give a fuck.
Besides, for all his lengthy citing of historical injustices, he overlooked American support for the Mujahideen to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan, so I’m disinclined to take his word for anything.
Well, it seems to be the main one, and whether it makes sense to anybody but him is of little consequence.
If I shoot you because I think you’re having an affair with my wife, then that was the reason I shot you, even if you’ve never met my wife.
Then I don’t understand why the removal of the existence of Israel would matter, then. Your assumption seems to be that Bin Laden’s insane and apt to lash out at someone whether they caused his problems or not.
I don’t really buy this, but in any case the primary reason the U.S. has military involvement in the area is not to defend Israel, but because of the oil.
I still want to know what the OP would do, given the choice he presented us.
I would shoot Mr. Hitler right through the brain.
Right on. Nice to see you chiming in with an opinion these days. I’m increasingly impressed.
Traditionally, its “three in the head, be sure they’re dead”, although 2 in the head and one through the chest has it’s adherents, as does empty the clip in the center of mass.
I’m delighted you saw fit to reply. You should do it more often. Of course, shooting someone conflicts with some of your other view, if I’m not mistaken and I still feel it would be a mistake.
What if instead of Hitler, it was an innocent child? Could you shoot a 5 year old who had done nothing wrong if it would save 6 million other people? In other words, would you walk away from Omelas?
I ask only because shooting a genocidal maniac is not much of a choice even without the better world guarantee.
I would consider it, not as to remove an evil man from history but it would be interesting living in a new reality.
The caveat being that it might be for me , an incredibly unpleasant reality.
I like Louis CK’s idea. He says he wouldn’t kill Hitler, just maybe rape him. He’d have all low self-esteem and such. “Hey, want to go invade Poland?” “No…I think I’ll just go take a shower.”
Glad you obey those voices in *your *brain so meekly!
Stephen Fry wrote Making History, in which time-travelers discover a method to prevent Hitler’s birth. The resulting world would probably be quite attractive to you(–& to Starving Artist.) This Wikipedia entry is pretty spoilery but good for somebody who doesn’t want to bother reading a very interesting novel.
I’d rather shoot Lenin. He deserved it just as much, and without Lenin there would have been no Hitler.
That again implies that someone who is far more practical and realistic than Hitler in other areas would also be as fanatically anti-Semitic.
How so? :dubious: There would have been no Stalin, sure. But no Hitler? Surely you jest. Study up on the Weimar Republic and the Treaty of Versailles.
I really doubt that The Final Solution would have been possible if Hitler had been the only anti-Semite in Germany. (And in the occupied countries, where a few citizens could usually be relied upon to help round up the jews.)
If you read the book–or the summary–you can see how a more “reasonable” Fuhrer could come up with a much Neater Solution.