You don’t believe the innocent who are killed in drone strikes have any right to complain? Are you trying to set a new standard for arrogance, or what?
They can complain about the terrorists who brought misery upon them.
ETA: And I said nothing about victims not complaining. I pointed out who was at fault.
He was correct.
It was our missiles that blew 'em up. Or would you deny that?
What does that have to do with it. It was our airplanes that hit the Twin Towers, so should we blame ourselves? The terrorists act like rabid dogs and hide among civilians. They also kill those same civilians. Should we sit back and let them kill us and their own countrymen indiscriminately and do nothing?
You are even arguing the issue of justification.
I beg to differ. The war on Terror is the same kind of amorphous, all consuming war that the wars in 1984 were, used to justify brutal acts against the enemy and restrictions on freedom just as they were. It’s about as exact an analog as you could ask for.
:rolleyes: Let’s not be ridiculous. Most of these “terrorists” live among civilians because they are civilians for most purposes (and that’s ignoring the victims who are just plain old civilians). They aren’t Cobra, they don’t have a secret volcano base they can go to even if they wanted to. And no, it isn’t reasonable of us to get all morally superior about their refusal to all gather on a big red X so we can drop a bomb on them all at once. And no, I doubt that they are using the populace for human shields, because they know quite well we care nothing about killing innocent bystanders.
And we are acting at least as rabid as the “terrorists”.
Who cares about moral superiority? They attacked us, they gotta die. They could be the Care Bears, instead of people who think teddy bears and democracy are Satanic, and they’d still have to die.
First, if we are in the moral wrong in a conflict then we deserve to lose. Because in that case we are the bad guys. You know, being immoral and all. And if morality doesn’t matter, then why should I care if they attacked “us”, as long as they didn’t attack me, personally?
And second, we aren’t attacking most of the people we are attacking because “they attacked us”. We’ve just been using that as an excuse for what amounts to a new Christian Crusade against brown people and Muslims in general.
We are not morally wrong in the conflict for the simple reason that we were attacked by a group that had declared war on us despite us never attacking them. We never did anything to bin Laden or his followers.
The war has been limited to attacking Al Qaeda, except for the Iraq war, which as far as it relates to the war on terror, was an attempt to implant a democracy into the Arab world.
There is no Christian Crusade against the Muslim world as of yet. That may be the end result, but we’re not anywhere near that now.
This entire post shows you don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
First, you just spouted a convenient comment about Republicans and Democrats. You certainly don’t have any proof that what you assert is the reason those two groups are continuing attacks against terrorist targets.
Next, your comment about American military officers is more in line with fictional (aka Rambo) movies than it is with how the United States military is actually run. Maybe you missed this in civics class, but that is not the way the US runs its military. Also your comment about the military officer’s mindset is simply fantasy.
And then you’re off into CT territory with the trite expression “military-industrial complex.” :rolleyes:
I’m a bit cynical about how my fellow Americans see others, especially how they see Muslims of late; however, I do not believe for a moment that the military itself nor the general voting public wishes to see every Muslim killed, and certainly not by wishing for daily drone attacks.
You did manage to hit on one valid point. There is too much to lose. The drone strikes are not targeting innocents. They are targeting terrorists. And, yes, those terrorists do not intend to just go on vacation if the US and its allies cease attacking said terrorists.
Your last so-called point is simply hand-waving. It obviously will take more than negating the heads of terrorist groups to neutralize those groups, to make them completely ineffective. It will take destroying those groups to do that.
It was an attempt to implant some oil in the Western world. It was a needless war, a useless war, it’s excuse was the existence of weapons of mass destruction that Bush and his cabal had little or no evidence for the existence of (which is why he used the Nigerian yellowcake hoax in his State of the Union address even though Joe Wilson had told his Administration … at THEIR request … that the yellowcake thing was a hoax). Bush and his cabal of advisors are war criminals, and you are one of their enablers. They belong in the Hague World Court along with their fellows like Milosovitch. And you are known by the company you keep.
It does no such thing. The fact that you disagree doesn’t mean, unfortunately for you, that I haven’t a clue.
It’s perfectly analagous to the ‘War on Crime’. Republicans are hard on crime because they hate criminals. Democrats are hard on crime because they can’t be seen as looking soft on crime, for the sake of votes.
Civics class notwithstanding, I was in the military. I’m not talking about how the US runs its military, I’m talking about the people that run the military. You really think that miliary officers don’t think like that? How many have you known?
Except that despite being trite, it exists. There is an enormous industry based upon nothing more than homeland security and the WoT.
The groups will always exist. There will always be somebody who is willing to call themselves AQ. Hence, a never-ending conflict which is producing rapidly dimished returns.
How many American military officers have I personally known? More than a few hundred. Three of them happen to be in my immediate family. So you were in the military? Same here. So, your stance that you know what you’re talking about doesn’t because you were in the military doesn’t seem to hold all that much water, now, does it?
It counters the point that you seem to think that everything I need to know about the military, I should have learned in Civics class.
So, in your experience with a few-hundred-and-three military officers, would you please explain how they view the WoT, and how it siginificantly differs from my post.
And if there are instances where their views are counter to our currently strategy, how comfortable would they be, and what direction would their career path take if they voiced their opinion?
Their view doesn’t include the modern world being “the military-industrial complex.” They also do not intend nor do they advocate for killing all Muslims on the planet. Over the years they–and I–have been in the military, none of us was cashiered for voicing opinions that most certainly are the opposite of your assertions.
Specifically, how does this differ from reality, as you see it:
Edit: Just noticed that I left out a ‘not’ in the next-to-last line when I wrote this. It should read “That aside, I can’t help but think that the Colonel who publicly says “Ya know guys, this is dumb. Let’s pull out now. Drone strikes? Bad idea.” will probably NOT see a promotion.”
Okay, now you’re full on into delusional. I just explained to you how reality differs from your nonsensical posts.
This is more appropriate for the Pit than GD. Don’t call other posters delusional.
The justification is that since 9/11, terrorists are now a military rather than a law enforcement problem. This is the origin of the phrase, “War on Terror.” In Afghanistan, we are fighting a war in a literal sense. We use airstrikes against enemy targets, the same as we would on any other battlefield. They are used outside of Afghanistan because the war does not stop at the border and host nations are unwilling or unable to kill/capture the target through other means.
You can argue that this is cowardly, immoral, unethical, or counterproductive all you like. That is your right. However, from a legal/moral standpoint they are not different from any other form of military attack.