Again, your experiences are not universal.
And I don't get why you're saying I'm making "an emotion-based case built on hyperbole." Please, explain.
Jango said:A man comes home one day from working out in the fields to discover that his home is leveled and that his family is dead.
Jango said:Children in targeted areas are afraid of the blue sky and exhibit PTSD symptoms
brothern said:Granny's walking down the street, BOOM, smoking crater with grandma's mangled bloody guts splayed out everywhere. Which is brought to you happily by the United States, "When we murder you, we prefer to do it in the most evil way possible!"
He is suggesting that that is how we view the problem. You know, because the President is a racist :roll:
He is a racist, but only on a national level to the extent it serves his social justice agenda.
well the necessary implication of jetboogie's argument is that he's racist against brown people on the other side of the world, so.... clearly you are wrong and the President hates brown people and loves white people. That's why he fired Eric Holder as soon as the Holder Justice Department decided that white people couldn't have their civil rights violated.
Or maybe he thinks 'we' is Canada.
Good point, good point... it's well known what bigots Canadians are.
The correct number is 42% of those identified were "militants". There is no way of knowing the status of those not identified.
I wonder how may civilians were killed in Iraq by our "shock and awe" attacks before the invasion? The best estimates for the Iraq war are over 100,000 civilians including women and children killed. Drones are far more humane than invasion.
Is there a point anywhere in our future?
That is correct. They are merely standard.
This is an emotion-based argument:
so is this:
so is this:
They are all anecdotes pulled out of context in order to appeal to emotion - "eew, that's bad, that's icky, Gosh, I don't want that!!!" :roll: It's also hyperbolic, in that it suggests that that is the actual standard for the drone program, which such is in fact astronomically far from the truth.
Oh. So humanist reactions are emotion-based arguments?
I forgot, the people on the ground at the business end of drone strikes are supposed to all be cold-hearted geopolitical Einsteins,
The U.S. is doing what it must to safeguard its interests. I don't know why you're denying that our drones and drone strikes have ****ed innocents up.
I already told you that drones are effective, and I'll go even further: they should not be eliminated. But I'm not going to sit here and deny that 1) it has an awfully impact on innocents, particularly children
2) civilians get blown up
& 3) because of 1 & 2 more-and-more people are being recruited because they are susceptible to being radicalized.
Yes. BUT LOOK AT THIS PICTURE OF A SAD CHILD!!! is indeed a emotion-based argument.
This, also, is an emotional argument. Why should we craft national foreign policy based on the preferences or emotions of those on the business end of our targeting processes as opposed to our own ability to exercise reason?
I don't. I simply point out that the stats given by the OP and the imagery presented by you are inaccurate representations of the drone strike program.
Sure, and it's impact is less than those of the alternatives, making drones (in many cases) the more humane option.
Rarely, but yes. Just as civilians die in all military operations, especially against an enemy that chooses to use a civilian populace as cover and concealment.
That's an interesting claim. Can you demonstrate that we are creating more jihadists than we are killing with the drone program?
Yes. BUT LOOK AT THIS PICTURE OF A SAD CHILD!!! is indeed a emotion-based argument.
This, also, is an emotional argument. Why should we craft national foreign policy based on the preferences or emotions of those on the business end of our targeting processes as opposed to our own ability to exercise reason?
I don't. I simply point out that the stats given by the OP and the imagery presented by you are inaccurate representations of the drone strike program.
Sure, and it's impact is less than those of the alternatives, making drones (in many cases) the more humane option.
Rarely, but yes. Just as civilians die in all military operations, especially against an enemy that chooses to use a civilian populace as cover and concealment.
That's an interesting claim. Can you demonstrate that we are creating more jihadists than we are killing with the drone program?
Killing civilians in drone strikes causes problems because we are not at war with a country, but a specific group of individuals.
Killing civilians in drone strikes causes problems because we are not at war with a country, but a specific group of individuals.
Those civilians are supporters and sympathizers of the people we're at war with.
I would act for proof of this claim, but I know its gonna be "the military told me so"...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?