On When Revolutions Are Justified.

Some people say that the January 6th riots were justified, because they were no different than American or French revolutions. Those people need help, because their information was wrong and rioting is not justified just because you think the other side cheated in an election. But putting that aside for a moment, there is an old ethical debate as to whether certain things that are wrong are sometimes justified. For example people still say violence is justified in cases of self-defense. But even with that, public opinion and the law is becoming more and more skeptical.

People are kind of wrong about the American and French revolutions too. Because there is a lot of historical revisionism involved with both. The American Revolution wasn't as noble as some people think it was. I'm an American, so I tend to think it did more good than harm. But it was mostly economic. And a lot of what we still believe just didn't happen. Betsy Ross probably didn't sew the first American flag. And Nathan Hale never said I regret that I have but one life to give for my country. The Boston Massacre did happen. But only three people were actually killed (two died later). The Americans are the ones who started it by taunting the British soldiers, who simply panicked. Also interesting, Crispus Attucks, the instigator of the Boston Massacre was black. Paintings at the time depicted him as white.

And the French Revolution wasn't really a revolution at all. There was no war. It simply resulted from the meeting of the Estates General of 1789. It also led to the year-long Reign of Terror, which was largely caused by the misuse of power by Maximilien Robespierre.

The point is violence and disorder are never justified. However, if you are faced with two bad outcomes, both of which are equally bad, that's called a dilemma. A genuine moral dilemma would be a situation, not a moral rule. And those rarely come up today.

 

Americans believe if you pay good money for something, its justified, and they paid good money to riot. They were promised the judges would go easy on them, and they usually did, and are still working on commuting their sentences.

Who cares if they killed a few rent a cops! You'd think someone shot your dog!

 

Webster's says a (political) revolution is: a "a sudden, radical, or complete change; b. a fundamental change in political organization, especially : the overthrow or renunciation
of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed." Both the American Revolution and the French Revolution would seem to qualify.

The "nobility" of the American Revolution can be questioned, but it resulted in something new in the world: a country headed by an elected commoner instead of a monarch. It replaced the monarchical notion of Divine Right of Kings with the notion of the Rule of Law--a development which is currently being challenged once again. It does a seem to have been "mostly economic", but IMHO that's not a bad thing. The French Revolution happened in three stages: the first, launched by the storming of the Bastille in 1789, which led to the creation of the French National Assembly, the declaration of rights, the end of feudalism, and the supremacy of state over church; the second in 1792, leading to the replacement of the monarchy by a republic; and the third in 1793, when another revolt led to the takeover by the Committee for Public Safety and the Reign of Terror.

The French Revolution, unlike the American one, was a social revolution, as well as a political and economic one. In Reflections on the French Revolution, Edmond Burke, British statesman of the era, contrasted the two revolutions: the American Revolution, he said approvingly, was about the rights of Englishmen, grounded in the tradition of Magna Carta, the Petition of Right the English Bill of Rights, and "self-evident truths", in opposition to taxation without representation. The French Revolution, on the other hand, was more radical and far-reaching, grounded on "Reason" and the "Rights of Man", the "General Will", and removal of all vestiges of Christian religion. A majority of the populace, namely the peasantry, was in misery as a result of the economic and political mismanagement of a corrupt and incompetent ruling elite.

Are revolutions ever justified? Romans 13:1-2 says that all governments are authorized by God, and therefore resistance to government authority is resistance to God. The Founding Fathers thought otherwise; that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Declaration of Independence.

As for the January 6 insurrectionists, I'll leave it to your judgment. Do you think "The election was rigged", and that Biden or the Dems evinced "a design to reduce us to despotism?"

 

The poor January 6 rioters were mis-informed. They had been watching TV where riots in Portland, Seattle & Minneapolis were described as "mostly peaceful" The Black Lives Matters disturbances were hailed in our media in a positive light. We were enjoying a: "Summer of Love" A federal courthouse in Portland was set afire to little complaint from our MSM. The CHOP zone in Seattle was born in the wake of the George Floyd murder; facing little conndemnation. In Baltimore, the death of Freddie Gray after a violent arrest prompted a riot that was dismissed as: " Blowing off steam" by City leaders. A Congressman yanked the fire alarm in The Capitol to close off a debate. Our MSM has black holed these disturbances. Yet J6 is front and center in a campagain to de-legitimize opposition to our current administration. It twas a coarse, nasty event for sure, but it was in tune with what had happened previously.

The J6 people should have known better that thier particular riot would not receive similar toleration. The Vote-face in the media was shocking. Reminding me of the passage in Orwell's 1984 where the nations alliance and war opponents were switched seamlesly and without comment.

 

We should distinguish between rioting and revolution. The central distinction is that the former involves "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd" and the latter adds the specific objective of bringing about "the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed." The BLM protests and Portland violence seems to fall into the "riot" category; the aim seems to have been protest, and for some opportunists, a free shopping trip. The objective of the January 6 assault on our Capitol, whether or not all the participants were aware of it, seems to have been to prevent Congress from finalizing the transfer of power from one President to another. Is that a revolution? Or would maybe attempted coup d'etat (the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"Definition of COUP D'ÉTAT) might be a better name. The label the MSM seems to have settled on is "insurrection": "an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects." Authority | Definition, Types & Uses Others have characterized it as a "normal tourist visit." https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/13/politics/andrew-clyde-january-6-riot/index.html

 

The J6 Insurrectionists were not misinformed about what it means to protest. They knew what they were doing when they erected a gallows, and every other act of violence they played out. They were lied to about the election being stolen. And they were certainly suckered in, as a 1947 movie stated it---suckered in to fascism.

 

According to the mass media, half the damn country is now a cult, blame their teachers.

They're all Satanists!

Fighting evil justifies any revolution.

 

Unless or until Utopianism takes over.

If you think that you (or your party) alone have the power to create the best nation ever, and have the only way forward. Then what may have been righteous or well-intentioned in the beginning becomes the evil, and it may very well be worse than before. The problem begins to manifest when you accept that you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. As soon as you say, sacrifices have to be made, and those sacrifices are people or their liberty, or freedom, you've gone too far. When people become objectified as numbers, it is too late.

There are very few revolutions that have not gone down this road. The American revolution may be the only one. (Though Native Americans may tell you otherwise with good reason). Perhaps the saving grace with the American Revolution was that we had a nation to build with a large frontier to exploit, and we were separated by a vast ocean from the former established political order. We didn't have a palace to storm and a former political leadership to imprison and commit barbarities against.

The other revolution that was successful in this sense may not really count as a revolution by the definition used in this thread, but it has changed the Left and the world in ways that I think are largely unrecognized and probably not understood. And it was very much a cultural revolution, it also took place here in America. Jean-Francois Revel wrote about it in his book, Without Marx or Jesus, The new American revolution has begun. I believe he was one of the few who put it properly into its political context for the world. I am, of course, speaking of the counterculture movement that began in the 60's. I would argue that Leftist thought in the 60's was still largely dominated by Marx, at that time, particularly in Europe. When he first wrote the book, the European Left did not like it, and quickly turned on him. But in time, they too moved away from Marx and you began to see the rise of Democratic Socialism that you see there today.

But the danger of this utopian thinking is very real. It is the hidden message by the Who in their song, We Won't Get Fooled Again, and it is implied by the Beatles in their, Revolution.

Christian Nationalists think that fighting the evil of abortion is justified. But this is an evil that is justified only by their narrow interpretations of a book that is a few thousand years old, and the only reference it has to abortion being a fault against another treats it as a civil case, as of a father losing a piece of property. Yet they are willing to condemn many women to death by eliminating all rights to terminate a pregnancy. And this is in a world where some couples can only have children by freezing embryos, which means that only some of those embryos will be used, and the others will be killed. Meanwhile, mothers who suffer the tragedy of miscarriage can potentially face imprisonment.

 

The overwhelming majority have made their own damn dictionary taboo, and a quarter of the population still claims the sun revolves around the earth, ensuring the only meaningful revolution possible is to automate the damn truth.

Kindergarten Playground Revolution! Its called the fucking truth, which speaks louder than words. Automate the truth, and the Supreme Court and Microsoft can call their own machines liars all they want.

 

Speaking of the last "true" revolution. (The American and French revolutions were economic and political. I don't care what anyone says.) It may have been the People Power Revolution or February Revolution in the Philippines February 22-25, 1986. It was also known as the Yellow Revolution because of the yellow ribbons used in demonstrations (from Tony Orlando and Dawn song "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree") following the assassination of Benigno Aquino Jr. August 1983. They were peaceful and nonviolent. And they led to the end of Ferdinand Marcos's 20-year dictatorship over the Philippines and the democracy the people enjoy to this day.

 

The BLM riots were quite a bit different than the riot to overthrow our elected government. To protest the way black folks are treated versus a mob that trashed the government building and threatened legislators lives are not equivalent.

 

Four syllable words like "equivalent" are not recommended when discussing politics.

 

My mistake.

 

Kinda hard to say which is more barbarous. All this aint gonna endup very well. How do ya deal with a buncha rednecks?

 

Those rednecks run Wall Street and the Pentagon, and are insane, not stupid. Currently, they are producing AI that comprehends professional wrestling better than any redneck. The trick is to let them over-extend their reach, then knock their feet out from under them, but automate the process. Its just Three Stooges slapstick, and you just have to know physics and reality better than the Three Stooges. My book covers all the details.

 

That is right! Though Duterte was a threat to the democracy and now they have elected the son of Marcos, so grab your popcorn. We will see how long this lasts. He insists that he is for democratic rule. And that is a positive.

But many people today in the Philippines do not know the rule of a dictatorship and even those who have lived it have forgotten the bad and only remember the good. You see this in Putin's Russia too. These countries have people that actually think that totalitarian control is needed, or was good, and this is a scary thing. Europe is shifting to the far Right as well, and a lot of it, like here in the US, is fueled by a racist disregard for immigrants. We are in the midst of a global refugee crisis.

And so it is here in the US. The MAGA crowd is filled with people who think that being free means having a president who calls himself a law and order president and think that religious freedom equates to making Christianity the dominant and national religion and basing laws on a narrow interpretation of Christian teachings. Since Trump was elected, and into the current administration, our constitutional rights have already been whittled away by the conservative SCOTUS. One scary thing is how law enforcement of any kind can get away with things that were unconstitutional before. People are oblivious to the things happening in the background, as our rights are disappearing.

The MAGA crowd is unbelievable in their concept of freedom, democracy and liberty. They demonize the Left as Marxist. But Marxism is pretty much dead. The Socialism that is popular in Europe is Democratic Socialism, as well as the Socialism of Bernie Sanders. But the Right uses the term, Marxist, Socialist, and Communist all to mean the same Marxist Ideology of the Soviet Union and the old Left. But Marxism has no foothold in America other than what a few that cling on to this old mistake of Hegelian Philosophy have as their base. Other wise there is nothing. So the MAGA crowd accuses the Left of taking away our freedom and that they alone represent freedom as they, the MAGA Right, seek to take away our freedom. As the old Nazi poster goes, Hitler is our Last Chance!, so goes the MAGA crowd replacing Hitler with Trump.

And they are validated by people who do not even have a clear understanding of freedom. I saw a video of a young guy on Instagram who was insisting that we live in a Police State, and there is no freedom. He explained that he has traveled all over this nation and worked jobs in many places, and so he has seen it. My question to him is, how was he able to leave so easily and travel from one state to another. How often were his papers checked and what excuse did he have to use that enabled him to travel? How was he allowed to leave each job. And then start a new job so easily. And if something went wrong or if people started asking about his many jobs and travels, how did he avoid a criminal case of suspected sabotage or being a saboteur? In a dictatorship he would be labeled a drifter, and Hitler, for example, rounded up the drifters and alcoholics and disabled and everyone else they considered lazy and put them in labor camps. (Coincidentally, a MAGA Republican friend of mine had a similar idea when I pointed out that if we remove all the undocumented workers, there will be no one to harvest our food, work the canneries and other unwanted or dangerous jobs and even help with construction. How will America survive that. His great idea was to take everyone on welfare and make them work the fields. So I pointed out that many of the Walmart employees are on welfare in order to make ends meet, what will happen to their jobs?) Obviously this guy is clueless to what life really is in a police state, and he still has an abundance of freedom that he enjoys.

Sure, we are losing our freedoms and we have to stop that. But we do not live in a totalitarian state. And to argue that we do gives power to those who believe that freedom will be achieved by electing a crazy megalomaniac, because he talks of freedom, liberty, and making the nation great again. If you look at all the popular conspiracy theories going back to 9/11, they pretty much bring us to where we are with people believing the election was stolen, and with journalists, scientists, doctors and everyone else is lying to them and so forth. Even if there are some conspiracy theories that are true, it doesn't change this. It has created this collective delusion.

 

I think its been a number of years since I talked about this on this platform, but I had a front row seat to the politics of the Philippines a number of years after the People's Revolution. My wife's family was connected. Her uncle is General Renato de Villa who was the top commander of the Philippine Armed Forces and was President Aquino's right hand man. Aquino's Vice President was Laurel who was a distant relative of the family on the same side as de Villa. Laurel was a constant thorn in the side of Aquino and when ever there was a coup attempt he was coincidentally or mysteriously outside of the country. This was all on her mother's side.

On her father's side there was also a long line of politicians but they were more local politicians in the Province of Cavite, but they were very popular and very well loved.

Aquino relied on General de Villa quite a bit and together they pretty much cleaned up one of the biggest problems of the countryside---the NPA, or New People's Army which was a communist group that was in reality more of a terrorist/criminal group to extort and make money under the guise of seeking a revolution. Philippine politics goes back a long ways into tribal origins and to truly understand it you'd have to trace it back to chieftans and ancient alliances. Aquino and Marcos have a very long history together going back into ancient times. In fact, the family was related in some way, I don't remember how (maybe marriage, I forget). But outside players like the NPA are not typically part of that, and the ideology they espouse is typically an excuse to make money illegally.

Connections are very important in the Philippines and we certainly had them through my wife's family and in other ways too. In our own neighborhood there were 2 families that were known as the Philippine Kennedy dynasty. They were connected by marriage and represented a lot of power for a while. One family was the Aguilar family and they had a lot of power in the suburb we lived in as long time governors and leaders in the community. They also owned one of the largest housing development companies in the Philippines. The only company that was larger was owned by Aguilar's brother-in-law, the brother of his wife, that was not only the largest in the Philippines but had branches in other parts of South East Asia. He was a long time Senator in the Philippines, Sen. Villar. We knew them well and I had my respect for them, which says a lot in the Philippines with the rampant corruption. As long as I knew Sen Villar I always respected him and thought he was a good politician. I felt the same about Aguilar, and his wife would always tell me how he was such a good man, and avoided corruption. We knew them, as there wasn't many foreigners in our neighborhood that were married to a relative of Gen de Villa, so... When my son was born, Minda, my wife, cemented the relationships by making them into my son's Godfather, which meant they were my kumpare, which is a special relationship in the Philippines.

Unfortunately, I lost some respect for Aguilar when we visited one time and found them buying votes from the local people. It may be Philippine politics, but I was disappointed. But both families are really good, and have done a lot for the local community where we lived and the Philippines as a whole. Buying votes is a custom there.

Other connections included the high ranking agents of the NBI (the Philippine FBI) and the Director of the NBI, Director Lim, who later became governor of Manila. We spent a weekend at his beach house. We used these connections at various times for various things in the Philippines. Outside of the family connections, there were two things that we had going for us. I had business cards from my former position as a Securities Analyst which stated that I was a Vice President of a major investment bank, Shearson Lehman, which at the time was owned by American Express, so even if people did not know Shearson Lehman, they saw the blue American Express logo and name and were always impressed--never mind my long hair. The second thing was my wife's beauty that always opened doors and grabbed men's attention.

For example, as you may know the last president was also an Aquino, the son of President Cory Aquino. One night we went to a disco in Manila, and there was a guy that was obviously hitting on Minda---he was the other son of Cory Aquino. As soon as he had a chance to get her alone (when I went to get some drinks), he gave her his phone number. We were still early in our relationship so I made her toss it away. Another time we had a court case over a land deal, when my wife tried to sell some land to her friend. We had a strong case, but the judge suggested that there were other ways to resolve it in his chambers, looking at Minda. She wouldn't do that, but the other girl did, and Minda suspected it all along, I didn't believe it, until suddenly we started losing the case, and we somehow ended up in the office of the mayor of Makati, and he took a liking to her, and said he would talk with the judge, and coincidentally that his (the judge's) budget was up for review. Overnight the case turned in our favor and right in the middle of court when he announced we had won, the other girl went up to the bench and angrily called the judge by his first name, saying that he had promised her, and suddenly I knew, Minda was right, she was sleeping with the judge to win the case (I know I've told that story on here before).

We were also fairly well connected in Japan at that time. I had a bit of fame because I was the first foreigner to work for a Japanese brokerage firm as a broker, I had my picture in several english magazines every month (I actually cut my hair for that) I wrote a weekly column for the english version of the Mainichi Newspaper, and NHK (the Japanese version of PBS) did a special on me as the first foreign stockbroker at a Japanese company). I was also a member for a short time of the Kobe Club, a country club for foreigners, and rubbed elbows with politicians and business leaders in the Osaka International Forum. Minda was a TV actress and though she was not yet famous, she was well known among directors and producers, and her looks got her far. She connected me to a night club owner/singer/actor who was considered the Japanese version of Frank Sinatra and he in turn hooked me up with a former Diet Member (the Japanese congress) who turned out to also be a high ranking yakuza. There is a lot I could share here.

I think that when you are a foreigner, particularly an American in Asia, that you can place yourself into situations and with people that will take you far into the center of things. As an analyst and through other connections in Japan I did make my way into a number of embassy parties and other social events. (In the Philippines we attended parties at the American Embassy and through the American Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines and that was it. Actually I was a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan as well which added to social events there and that is how I became a member of the Osaka International Forum.) Anyway, I was at one party at a certain Central American embassy and I happened to start talking to a cute girl who was a member of the Embassy staff. Several months later, Minda and I had to send money to the Philippines. Now, we were never morning people, and as usual, we got there on Saturday, 5 minutes before they closed. But it was always a good time to go because very few people were there. On this particular day, this girl was there and I said, "I know her" and walked up to say hello. As I got to the counter next to her, I glanced down and noticed that she was wiring money for the embassy to a certain political family in the Philippines. I didn't mean to snoop, but my eye caught the name and I was instantly interested. The amount was significant but it was an amount that would not be reported based on the limits for international money transfers in those days.. I didn't say a word and stepped back to my wife and pointed it out. After finishing her transaction she left and did not see me. This family (who I will not mention, as passing such information can have consequences) was a prominent family that is respected for not being corrupt, and fought against corruption.

But, you know, such a payment could be for anything. A service rendered, or a purchase, or whatever. However, several weeks later, we saw her again, same place and time, and I stepped up, and saw a similar but different amount going to another of the same family. Heeding the advice of my wife's family, that is all I will say about that.

Anyway, in the Philippines, as I said, I had a bit of a front row seat through my wife's family. I was always impressed with her uncle de Villa, though he was very military, and I don't know if he was that impressed of me---the hippie that I was. But he was very honest and good hearted. He ended the NPA threat, as I mentioned, by starting this forgive and forget program where the NPA would lay down their weapons and the Aquino government would give them money and help them start a career or a business and they would be free from charges over their former activities. It was very succesful.

When Aquino's term ended and Ramos was elected, he continued building the Philippine democracy and was a very good president in my opinion. He loved de Villa and while de Villa retired from the military, kept him in power, and when his term ended, he wanted de Villa to run for president somewhat as a puppet of Ramos to keep his legacy going. He would have made a great president, but after his military career, he was too serious and not used to the mudslinging of Philippine politics. He did not make it past the primaries, though he had great support of the Philippine military. If anything this is a testament to the strength of Philippine democracy at that time, because, you probably know how military commanders turned politician and popular support from the military go in third world countries.

But this is when Estrada won the election, and I quickly recognized him as a wanna-be dictator. He immediately did away with the Manila Times, which was a great Philippine paper but was critical of him---forcing its sale in a secret deal. My sister-in-law's brother in law was a high ranking agent under Estrada. He was a bit unsavory and I have a few stories to tell about him. One time he tried to pressure my wife and I to move while we were staying at her sister's house before moving to the US. and pulled out a gun. I didn't care who he was, I wasn't going to let an in-law scare me. He wanted us out so he could rent the house and get a commission, but he knew he could not force us out, and Minda's sister said that if we get a renter we get the commission. When he set the gun on the coffee table, I told him this conversation is over. I told Minda we are done and its time for bed. I took her hand, turned out the lights, and told him he could see his self out. Anyway Estrada had him lead some kind of an anti-crime commission. And in that capacity he played a role in a supposed terrorist attack in Manila. Estrada was dealing with resistance and losing popularity. So he resorted to a common dictator trick and tried to create a crisis and come out the hero. How do I know this? Because this same brother-in-law warned one of my sister-in-laws who had brought her boyfriend to the Philippines to not go to the places she was planning to on that particular day---places that were bombed that very day, which was unheard of in Manila. It was blamed on the Abu Sayyaf which does do bombings in Mindanao, the southernmost Island. But they are not active in Manila, or anywhere north of Mindanao. I don't know if the truth has come out. But Estrada did go to prison for plunder when Arroyo became president, and Philippine democracy has survived, even after Duterte who was referred to as the Philippine Trump. I hope it continues!

I have never had the opportunities here in the US to place myself anywhere near the center. I did meet Trump in 1988 and spoke with him for a minute or two, in which short time he insulted me and called me a stupid college kid for not agreeing that we needed to place tariffs on Japan, then waved me off. I tried to explain to him that tariffs are bad economics--its international economics 101, I said. I started to explain to him how the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan was actually opening up markets for American manufacturers--succesfully--but he would not hear it. He called me a stupid college kid---granted I did look young---but I was the star analyst of the show, requested by fund managers, which was held in one of Trump's buildings---because I had a knack for picking stocks (my secret---I use charts----learn charts if you want to trade--seriously. It was a secret because as an analyst, or most analysts anyway---due diligence requires that our forecasts and reasons to buy are all based on fundamental analysis (financials, earnings, industry strengths, etc.)).

In retrospect, I missed a great opportunity. Henry Kissinger was one of the directors at Shearson. I met him at a company event in Tokyo and he knew who I was---that young long haired analyst that can pick good Japanese stocks. I felt honored that he knew me, but I also knew what he did in Chile and Cambodia so, while I was very nice and was proud to say I met him, I never forged any contact with him after that. He paid private consultants and informers very good money to keep him abreast of things. After I left Shearson, and even after the failure of my own attempted investment company occured---another story---I could have made contact with him, and who knows what would have happened with my unique position in the Philippines, or Japan. I thought about this when he passed away so many months ago. On the one hand, I don't know if I could have morally worked with him. But I also understood that he had pragmatic reasons for doing what he did, and at the time he did them, he may have believed it was right despite the costs. It was kind of like how I was always enticed by the excitement and mystery of working for the CIA. But morally I could never do it because I disagreed so much with US foreign policy. The other thing that appealed to me was the Diplomatic Corp, but there too, I could not do it. No matter how much I think America is a great country, I know it is also a horrible friend and a terrible enemy. I would have gone to Canada rather than fight in Vietnam, even as something noncombative---because I knew that the war was against the Viet Cong, who were simple peasants who wanted the land they were promised after the French left. So instead, this hippie went to Japan, and worked the stock market.

Anyway---a bit of the adventures I saw----didn't mean to hijack the thread. Carry on.

 

I could have put this in my Morality Class and Moral Engagement threads. But I'll put it here.

A genuine moral dilemma would involve two equally bad outcomes. Or two equally good outcomes, Sr. Rose used to tell us in that morality class. (I keep laughing when I think about her explanation for the two good outcomes. She kept saying "Cake and ice cream! Cake and ice cream!" over and over again. I think she really liked her cake and ice cream [she told us she did once].) But that would be in a situation where the outcome was clear. In cases of self defense, you are justified in fending off the attack. Shielding yourself from the bullets and blocking the knife. But you would only be justified in taking the attackers life if there was no other alternative, because you had no choice.

Now the law does have something else called duress. Like when someone says if you don't kill those two people over there you die. And law recognizes, most people would feel they had no choice. They would feel they had to kill the 2 people. But you realize morally their actions would not be justified.