You, who smugly defends the practice of drone strikes which are far more effective at killing innocent civilians than al Qaeda bigwigs, are going to lecture me about morality? Oh, this is too rich.
This has been a fairly lengthy thread. I have no idea to which citation you are referring. Hence, my request. My cite says the success rate of these strikes in their avowed purpose is only about 2%.
You are the one who asked the imbecilic question, “So - what crime are you accusing her of?” presumably knowing there is no violated statute in question. My reply makes sense; yours here is infantile gibberish.
Didn’t slow us down in Korea or Vietnam, or in the invasion of Iraq. We have been ignoring that aspect of warfare for quite awhile. I don’t think we declared war on Serbia either, yet we sent in the bombers on that one.
Please cite the fact that the strikes’ “avowed purpose” is to kill ONLY the “high level targets”. That is, find me someone official “avowing” such a purpose. If not - then your statement is wrong.
The exact same cite that you gave shows that the “collateral damage” from drones is 15-20%. Since you claim that you read the report, I am sure you know this.
You’re the one that claimed that she was not “innocent”. If so, that means that she is guilty of some crime, warranting a death sentence. Yet you cannot point to one.
That document you cited above - you know, the one that claims 15-20% civilian casualties in drone strikes. How many of those civilians do you think were wives/brothers/sisters/children of the combatants that were killed? You’re trying to have it both ways. In Bin Laden raid’s case the wives/brothers are a fair target. In the drone strikes you’re crying crocodile tears over them.
Terrorist sympathisers/apologists always use the "fractionism " argument against counter terrorism.
ie. Only young males can be terrorists, and only those who’ve actually killed some one personally, in cold blood.
Sorry matey, but anyone who implements the actions of terrorist murderers, whether by logistics, financial assistance, transportation, information gathering, or even propoganda, is as guilty as the person who actually pulls the trigger/triggers the device, as without their help they couldn’t have murdered the innocent people in the first place.
The blood is on their hands.
Also there seems to be a sentimental view of women and children expressed by terrorist apologists/sympathisers, in that they are innocents and untouchable.
Any one shot, or blown up by a twelve year old is just as dead as someone murdered by a young adult male.
Anyone shot, or blown up by a woman is also just as dead as someone murdered by a young adult male.
Terrorist apologists/sympathisers like to play on our Western fear of “Doing the wrong thing”.
Ironically the people who send children or women to kill Westerners, even at the cost of those women and childrens lives, don’t actually suscribe to our values.
They celebrate their deaths as being "Martyrs "deaths, while getting the next batch ready to die for the cause.
Your take on eastern culture isn’t relevant to the discussion and this post is very inflammatory. In the future, keep this kind of thing in The BBQ Pit.
Women, Children and/or Youth’s can be armed as well and are being used in suicide bombing as well - as much as any man.
I don’t have problems with fighting and killing of people like Osama bin Laden and his cohorts. What I do have a moral problem with, is those drone strikes, that kill random people that have absolutly nothing to do with terrorists.
The sucess rate is to low, the civilian casualties are to high.
Putting Osama bin Ladens cohorts in the line of fire is something completly differnt that random civilians.