Red Mosquito

turned2black wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:I'll take, "Links I Will Never Click On In A Million Years," Alex:

I hope Skip Bayless shares his feeling on the subject soon. I've been waiting to hear his thoughts since the moment tragedy struck.

"I think the terrorists have a point"

turned2black wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:I'll take, "Links I Will Never Click On In A Million Years," Alex:

I hope Skip Bayless shares his feeling on the subject soon. I've been waiting to hear his thoughts since the moment tragedy struck.

Mike and Mike's coverage will also be gripping, I'm sure.

All these innocent civilian deaths, paid for with tax-payers money.

I don't understand why that's not considered terrorism?!


41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... -kill-1147

France Bombs Islamic State HQ, Hunts Attacker Who Got Away
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11 ... .html?_r=0

LoathedVermin72 wrote:France Bombs Islamic State HQ, Hunts Attacker Who Got Away
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11 ... .html?_r=0

Do they just have targets set aside for post terror attacks or what? Why aren't they already blasted to dust? That stuff is always so shady.

BurtReynolds wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:France Bombs Islamic State HQ, Hunts Attacker Who Got Away
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11 ... .html?_r=0

Do they just have targets set aside for post terror attacks or what? Why aren't they already blasted to dust? That stuff is always so shady.

I would guess we'll see a few more "proactive" strikes from this point forward.

dimejinky99 wrote:All these innocent civilian deaths, paid for with tax-payers money.

I don't understand why that's not considered terrorism?!

The killing of civilians isn't the aim of our actions, there's a clear moral distinction.

It's awful and it's horrific but it's unrealistic to think civilian casualties can be avoided entirely.

I'm not a fan of drones for various reasons, but the stats show they actually reduce civilian casualties.

Seems France are taking the old fashioned route

BREAKING: France has tonight launched "massive" air strikes on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria.
The Defence Ministry says 10 aircraft dropped 20 bombs on an ISIS command centre and training camp - destroying both. http://jrnl.ie/2446671f

dimejinky99 wrote:Seems France are taking the old fashioned route

BREAKING: France has tonight launched "massive" air strikes on the ISIS stronghold of Raqqa, Syria.
The Defence Ministry says 10 aircraft dropped 20 bombs on an ISIS command centre and training camp - destroying both. http://jrnl.ie/2446671f

Thanks, b.

Birds in Hell wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:All these innocent civilian deaths, paid for with tax-payers money.

I don't understand why that's not considered terrorism?!

The killing of civilians isn't the aim of our actions, there's a clear moral distinction.

It's awful and it's horrific but it's unrealistic to think civilian casualties can be avoided entirely.

I'm sure the friends and family of their civilians appreciate the difference

Just to provide a slightly less glib response.

I am not a pacifist. Sometimes violence and war is necessary to secure the safety and protection of innocent people. But we should never loose sight of the fact that organized state sanctioned violence leads to the murder of innocent people no less (and frequently much much more) than terrorism. Saying that this was an unintended consequence while knowing full well it is a probable consequence hardly seems to me to be sufficient to absolve us of moral responsibility. The response to the deaths of 150 innocent people is likely to kill 10 times that number of innocent people. That we didn't start it (though that's debatable) does not level the moral scale.

I am very much against any reasoning that enables us to diminish to ourselves the full horrific impact of what we authorize. If we were forced to confront the consequences of our actions, and bear responsibility for them, we would (I believe) be less likely to use violence in the first place--to the point that it really becomes an object of super last resort, rather than convenience, politics, power, and business.

*lose

E.H. Ruddock wrote:*lose

Haha I thought the same things. All of your thoughts are invalid because of one typo, stip!

I don't think spenno's comment necessarily means he's in favor of tactics that would lead to civilian deaths; he may have just been describing the distinction that drone-o-philes make. But not sure?

stip wrote:If we were forced to confront the consequences of our actions, and bear responsibility for them, we would (I believe) be less likely to use violence in the first place--

This has worked really well for criminal justice systems around the world.

Simple Torture wrote:I don't think spenno's comment necessarily means he's in favor of tactics that would lead to civilian deaths; he may have just been describing the distinction that drone-o-philes make. But not sure?

Er, I'm definitely not advocating for civilian deaths! ("Civilians? Fuck 'em, in my opinion.")

My previously comment wasn't specifically directed at drone strikes, just a general response to dimejinky's suggestion of an equivalence between civilian deaths resulting from Western military actions and terrorism.

See? Spenno isn't as big of a monster as we thought!

Spenno is basically the Australian me

stip wrote:Just to provide a slightly less glib response.

I am not a pacifist. Sometimes violence and war is necessary to secure the safety and protection of innocent people. But we should never loose sight of the fact that W Saying that this was an unintended consequence while knowing full well it is a probable consequence hardly seems to me to be sufficient to absolve us of moral responsibility. The response to the deaths of 150 innocent people is likely to kill 10 times that number of innocent people. That we didn't start it (though that's debatable) does not level the moral scale.

I am very much against any reasoning that enables us to diminish to ourselves the full horrific impact of what we authorize. If we were forced to confront the consequences of our actions, and bear responsibility for them, we would (I believe) be less likely to use violence in the first place--to the point that it really becomes an object of super last resort, rather than convenience, politics, power, and business.

I am a tree hugging hippie. So, Im with you to an extent. As this shit continues to go on and on (and the world wasn't exactly like this 20 years ago) Im wondering if a full out military assault isn't what needs to happen.

Your point here "organized state sanctioned violence leads to the murder of innocent people no less (and frequently much much more) than terrorism. " ....

What if we didnt go after hitler? How many innocent lives were saved in the long run by such military operations?

its fucked up to approach war as a balance sheet on the cost of human lives but....

Strat's a hippie?