Killing one bad guy justifies killing 6 innocent people, including babies, widows and orphans, for.
So, how many babies are you worth?
First off, we are not at war with Pakistan, so this horseshit about “sometimes in war you have to drop ordnance on a funeral” applies even less than it normally would. Second, I already linked to a Washington Post article stating that the Obama administration defines every adult male in Pakistan as a terrorist and thus does not include them in the civilian casualty count. As for the idea that anyone who doesn’t support the insane plan to murder the whole population of Pakistan is somehow racist against black people, obviously the notion itself is so disjointed as to be beneath contempt, but I do wonder why the people accusing others of such character flaws are allowed to keep blowing up any attempt at sane discussion of this issue. I guess there is truly nothing that will get you censured on this board so long as it supports a policy of the Messiah Obama, even his policy of mass murder and racial profiling.
Maybe this is the crossover appeal–people who liked the Bush foreign policy, especially the part about mass killing of Muslims: Obama wants your vote, and since re-electing him is effectively giving Bush a fourth term on the foreign policy /brown people death front, you ought to give it to him.
How many am I hiding amongst?
Depends on how many megatons I’m planning on using.
So, eermm, where are you hiding?
Nobody has said otherwise.
You linked to a New York Times article that said nothing of the sort.
This is arguable on its own, so there’s no need to pile on a bunch of nonsense about saying everyone in Pakistan is a terrorist.
One of us definitely missed something here, but I don’t think it’s me.
Same place as always, right behind you. :eek:
Ah, they only magically become terrorists once they are killed by a bomb. This affects my assertion that the “terrorist” v “civilian” death counts are bullshit…how?
It affects your assertion that the administration determined that all Pakistani males are terrorists. The affect is has on that assertion is showing that it is absolutely wrong. If that has no bearing on your argument, why did you make this ludicrous statement in the first place?
For the purpose of cooking the books on terrorist v civilian death figures, which was the context of the claim, the post, and the entire thread, the administration has indeed determined that. You should be more worried about the fact that they are doing so!
I already posted the actual cite (as opposed to linking to an article and misrepresenting what it said). Their guidelines do provide some leeway for fudging numbers, which is a real concern. But they are talking about people who are killed by drone strikes that were authorized as a result of intelligence that suggested terrorist activity. That’s not “anyone” or “all Pakistani males” or any of the other nonsense you posted repeatedly:
The there is “terrorist activity” in the world (and I’m sure however President Jesus defines that, it’s a laugh riot) or that “intelligence” “authorized” the drone strikes couldn’t matter any less; the point is that people are quoting numbers on civilian casualties (which is, again, the entire issue here) from government sources that freely admit that they will not consider any adult male killed in a drone strike to be a “civilian.” You’re obfuscating this issue because you have so much Obama Kool-Aid in your veins that even apologizing for murdering innocent people seems obligatory.
That’s the first time you’ve gotten this right in four or five tries. Why did you get it wrong all the other times?
I’m pretty sure nobody said anything about hating black people until you accused yourself of it as a strawman criticism of everybody else. Am I wrong, or do you have a cite this time?
Wrong - we ourselves would bomb the shit out of the terrorist camps hiding on US soil. It would never get to the point of Mexico needing to bomb our territory. That’s the difference - these 3rd world countries let the terrorists sit within their territory and turn a blind eye, or are too afraid to do anything about them.
That is some assertion right there. Not many people would be willing to assert that in the face of the fact that it has never happened. Despite the fact there have been over 250 incidents of terrorist attacks in the US in the last 30 years or so, I can’t recall the government ever bombing a terrorist camp in the US. I forget, did they bomb O’Hare to get Padilla? How about that little cabin in the woods that the Unabomber was in, did they bomb that? Or those 10 most wanted terrorist in the US, how many have they bombed?
I suppose it is possible that a President would order a drone attack to blow up an apartment in Chicago to kill a terrorist cell. But I think you’re severely overstating the case.
Spoken like a true Bush voter.
We bombed MOVE in Philly:
We attacked Koresh with tanks.
We killed a woman holding a baby at Ruby Ridge
I think it is safe to say that we are bloodthirsty enough to allow for collateral damage on our own soil if we decide the “bad guy” is “bad enough.”
And how did those things work out for everyone? Each of those are very good reasons why the government shouldn’t (and to my mind likely won’t ever) bomb civilians in the US to kill supposed terrorists.
[Quote=Algher]
I think it is safe to say that we are bloodthirsty enough to allow for collateral damage on our own soil if we decide the “bad guy” is “bad enough.”
[/QUOTE]
And I’m sure there would be apologists if it were done. None of which changes the fact that it is very unlikely the government would ever do it on American soil. The reasons for not doing it here are much the same as not doing it there. The biggest difference is that the victims here would be “us” and not “them Pakestanis”.