Innocence Riots

He's probably just joking and forgot the smiley again.

Mostly its just you.The US does not target children with drone strikes and its lying when you hyperbolically spin it that way.And since you're such a fan of disgusting photos:

Yeah, so?

First stop posting idiodic messages, and then people will stop telling you how stupid you are.

War is ugly and innocent people die. Its inevitable.And apathy runs deep.But maybe I'm just a heartless bastard.

We are at war. Its backed by NATO. The other main participant is the United Kingdom. The countries we're helping are condoning our actions.But I suppose its really easy to sit in your office and go: "Naw, that's not a war"

So if it really was a war then why would you have more sympathy?

I don't think so. We are using our actual armies in this war. Depends on what you want to consider it. Proper war war traditionally has been between sovereign states. But the times they are a changin'. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda.But they don't have their own sovereign states, so it doesn't look like a proper war war. Still, I think its worth considering a war.

I don't think its so cut-n-dried...Al-Qaeda isn't a sovereign state. We are. They don't have a proper army army. We do. They live among and use civilians. We don't.I think we're kinda forced into a double-standard here. We're at war with them but they're not really at war with us. They're just "terrorists". Well, the Bombing of Dresden isn't really a model act of war, is it? Or is that the point?I could see how you could call 9/11 an act of war, and I'd bet that they think it was, but I don't find it particularly useful. Targeting and killing innocent civilians is shitty either way.And I don't accept our actions as being the targeting of innocent civilians, so there's a difference there. What about the "citizens" who are participating in acts of "war"? Suicide bombers who aren't part of an army. The hijackers on 9/11. They're a part of the terrorist organizations but they're not sanctioned by any state.We can't just sit idly by, but we don't have a state to declare war on. So what do you do? And I'm still wondering where the attitude that if we were really at true war this would all somehow be better comes from. You mean, like how the Bombing of Dresden was "justified"? 'Cause I'm not so sure it was...

You've got the advantage of hindsight....I think if we would have eliminated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and established those countries then that would've been fine.Doing nothing wasn't an option.

I think that when you have declared war on a state, you are justified in destroying key cities for the advancement of your military advantage.

Of course you are welcome to share your opinion, but unfortunately, you decided to avoid providing anything more convincing than unevidinced assertions.

I dunno, sorta okay I guess. We had to do something... Has it? How do you know that? You got figures on numbers of terrorists or something?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : i accidentally a word

Yes, I do. Do you have any reasons I should think otherwise?

There's no reason to be a dick about it, I'm not pretending anything doesn't exist. Its more likely that I just didn't see what you're referrring to. Is it a particular message?