Al Queda and Taliban can expect drone attacks for the next 100 years. Any civilians dumb enough to not drive out all al Queda and Taliban from their communities can expect the same.
Don’t start what you can’t finish.
Condescending Robot,
I’m going to apologize for using the phrase “that’s mighty white of you.”
It was meant as a joke, not as an accusation of racism which you felt it was.
That wasn’t my intention, but regardless it was wrong and irresponsible of me to use it.
I’m sorry for doing so.
I think your attitude towards sanctions towards Apartheid South Africa is foolish but hardly racist.
Der, you have many times run up your colors and your views are well known, sending in Marines with water pistols would constitute an atrocity by your definition.
Declan
I grow weary of the dumbass comments somehow blaming farmers, children, and other innocents for the work of Al Qaeda. Get this straight, not every person of a darker skin color in Pakistan deserves to die. This idea that these poverty stricken people, who are more concerned about where their next meal comes from than international politics, should kick out the guys with the guns and the power in order to save themselves from American bombs is … to be honest, subhuman. My disgust with this way of thinking grows every damn day.
Wow.
That statement is beyond piggish.
Would the Royal Navy have been justified in shelling Jewish neighborhoods in Tel Aviv where members of the Irgun and Lehi hid out in response to the bombing of the King David Hotel or the murder of Lord Moyne since the Jews were “too dumb” to drive them out?
In other words, you can’t defend your “kill the brown people” plan, and so slam me instead hoping no one will notice that you haven’t.
In this arena, when it comes to aggresive american foreign policy, your more catholic than the pope. You dont as much debate, as state your position against all comers. Your views are well known, and i really doubt that you are going to be swayed by anything i have said, you concider that a slam, then by all means use that report a post to a mod, if your offended.
Declan
No apologies. I’m for killing Al Queda and Taliban wherever they may be. If they happen not to be around innocents, that is much better. But I am all for collateral damage that kills Al Queda and Taliban. If people don’t want to be in that collateral damage, then they will make sure not be be around any Al Queda and Taliban. Americans have the right to defend themselves with deadly force against Al Queda and Taliban. In war, innocent people get killed and their homes and livelihoods destroyed.
I would have preferred that Al Queda did not start this war, but they have been making war on the US since the 1990s. If they don’t want to surrender, then kill them. War is hell, let’s kill them before they kill us.
Translation: You still can’t defend your “just kill people” plan.
As if they have that option.
We’re not defending ourselves.
Fine. And just how long do you want us to keep slaughtering innocent people? 50 years? A hundred? The next thousand? And what makes you think that we are doing anything but manufacturing more enemies? We’ve been stomping around the world slaughtering people for decades, and that’s usually all it ever accomplishes.
I think you misunderstood the intent of my post. It wasn’t an attempt to get you to apologize for your hateful, immoral viewpoint, it was to bring it to light and to emphasize my disgust with that viewpoint.
Your arguments are usually better than this.
Killing Al Queda and Taliban is defending ourselves. And they are not innocent. Some of the people around them who get killed in attacks are innocent. I am not advocating killing innocents. I am saying that it is part of war. Not a nice part of it.
The US did not invent war, nor did it start killing innocents in this war. That started with embassy bombings in the 90s and continued with the 9/11 attacks, which were against innocents.
50 or 100 years, or until the Taliban start teaching that it is wrong to help people launch attacks against the US. Al Queda for as long as they exist.
No, it isn’t. First, because we can kill them for the next hundred years without actually accomplishing anything but creating more recruits for them. We could kill them all, and that wouldn’t stop more people from forming their own anti-American organizations in response to the bloodshed. Second, because we have a pronounced tendency to simply declare the people we kill “terrorists” ex post facto; declaring the deaths of some guy we only thought was Al Qaeda to be self defense doesn’t make it true. And third, killing the Taliban isn’t self defense at this point; we are the aggressors there.
We’ve long since gone past any retaliation for 9-11, and have reached the point where we are killing for the sake of killing. We’ve demonstrated that no amount of blood will satisfy us.
Uh, yeah, you are. That’s the whole point. The drone strikes kill innocents every time. 1 in 5 according to the cooked books, probably more like 1 in 2 in reality. You are advocating continuing, expanding, permanentizing the drone program. How are you not arguing in favor of killing innocents?
I think the word “advocate” has too many connotations. I advocate the making of war against our enemies. This will have the unintended consequence of the death of civilians. I do not advocate the death of civilians.
You may believe that I may not, morally, separate intended from unintended consequences. I believe that I may. Where can we go from here? How would you persuade me to believe something that I, at present, do not believe?
You think that the Stanford Study which has regularly been touted by those arguing against drone attacks has been forging material?
Please explain.
On another note, you have yet to explain your opposition to sanctions against Apartheid South Africa.
Why do you view Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu as monsters who advocated and brought about mass murder?
Ibn, Ibn.
Really, how old are you?
What he said was that he didn’t approve of the sanctions against SA.
He asked you if you would have condoned the use of drones against SA.
In the sense that innocents would have become victims.
Would you?
Would you have condened a drone attack on Nelson Mandela?
He sure was a terrorist.
What if they had had the technology then and blown him up with his cash of handgrenades and landmines? Together with some “innocents” whom he was shielding amongst.
Your comments are moronic. During the 80s, Nelson Mandela wasn’t sitting amongst any grenades or land mines. He was in a South African prison.
I’d recommend reading up on the subject before embarrassing yourself again as you just did.
BTW, what does “condened” mean?
Again I must ask you. How old are you?
If you had followed the linky you would have found out why he was in prison.
You fire a hellfire into a crowd containing some suspected bad guys then you fully intend to kill and maim everyone in that crowd. You know what is going to happen and you do it anyway.
Until such time as there is magic shrapnel and highly selective blast waves and compression effects there’s no ‘whoopsies’. Man up and say - killing half a dozen suspected bad guys was totally worth killing 6 kids for.
Innocents are going to be killed in war time. That is not arguing for killing innocents, don’t be obtuse. It is arguing for killing Al Queda and Taliban, who are the targets. If innocents get killed at the same time, well, then, I’m not against that. And I am okay with only 1 in 5 or 1 in 10 being bad guys. And I’m okay with the occasional complete mistake. It’s war. If you come over here and fly a plane into buildings killing a bunch of our Yankee bankers (whom I do not particularly care for, by the way), I’m okay spending the next 100 years hunting down every person who aided or abetted or threatens to repeat the act and killing them and the people around them. It’s war, and it’s hell.