|
MrRodgers -> RE: Snowden awaiting a plea deal (12/5/2015 10:34:36 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Already we are changing the meaning of words. When [they] kill innocents, we call it terrorism. When we kill innocents, we call it collateral damage.
The difference, though, is that the goal of the "terrorists" is to kill innocents, while the goal of ours is to kill the terrorists.
If you're killing innocents as a way to get your point across, to piss off a government, to scare the masses to your demands, etc., you're targeting the innocents, and that's terrible.
If you're targeting the "bad guys" and innocents get killed, it's not as bad, especially if there was no way to further limit innocent deaths and still kill the "bad guys."
I'm not saying the US acts honorably in all things, or that we couldn't have limited innocent deaths more than we did. I'm sure there have been times when we could have planned for (and accomplished) fewer innocent deaths (true "mistakes/accidents" aren't included since they weren't according to the plan).
If a legitimate target is hiding among innocents, and a planned strike takes out the target and some innocents, it's different than having innocents as the actual targets according to the plan.
Do you think, that's what those family's think or feel about their families being killed ? Do you think they care that we 'say' that it was an accident or that we didn't mean to do it ?
The question has been asked many times and it's a valid one. How would Americans feel if say Iranian drones killed somebody [they] claim is a legitimate target in oh...Austin ? How would the American people feel about anyone killed in that attack, especially say, a wedding party, a funeral procession ?
Seriously? Are we to worry about what every single person might think of an action we take? We accept that there will be collateral damage. I would hope we do as much as possible to limit it, though. People are still going to be pissed when it happens. Every family member of someone killed as "collateral damage" is going to be hurt and vengeful, which is why we need to limit it as much as possible.
Diplomatic efforts have not always worked in the Middle East, leading to actions being taken. Collateral damage will happen. It's going to be a shitty deal for those who are touched by it. There is only one way to completely rule out the death of innocents by our hands, but I don't think foregoing all military actions is really an option.
There there is this. Did al Qaeda ever make any offers?
After you even say you have argued the same as Thompson, you then continue here as if you lose the victim's perspective. That perspective contains the whole tragedy of what these US attacks are doing. They are creating a whole new belief that the US IS the problem...regardless of what we claim to be legitimate provocations.
The US govt. claims this or that person is or even could be a threat. Then [it] decides on its own to attack. The attacks and with whatever steps are taken...still kills innocents. The victims see this as and have begin to claim the deaths for what they think they really are...collateral murder.
That the US uses enough technology to kill their suspect yet, it is insufficient technology to prevent innocents from being killed. So the survivors very logically feel as if the US has no right to attack at all. To them, it is no different if the US carpet bombed with a B-52 to get 'their' man...it's all the same to the families who lose their loved ones.
And yes, every single person who feels the way I've seen and heard about this, no matter how much money the US throws around as if to buy their forgiveness, could be a future terrorist with a mind to attack the US or at least US interests.
|
|
|
|
