Innocence Riots

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

I don't see that at all.The subject of collateral damage is essential, and tragic.The goal should be to minimize collateral and unintended damage and I think drone attacks are a step towards that.It would be nice and IMHO the smart thing to do to try different paradigms than those in the past. Most recently, invading Iraq and Afghanistan were examples of an old paradigm that hopefully we will move away from. They were both pretty much an example of terrible and stupid responses to 9-11 and I would go so far as to say the two invasions succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of Bin Laden.Terrorism goal is not to kill the enemy but rather reduce the public opinion of the enemy and to provoke an excessive and more costly response.Unfortunately the US played exactly by the terrorists script.And we are left with the fact that we are stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the bill.So far the terrorists have won and the US has screwed itself.The question is now that we stepped in the shit, how do we get out of it?

I think the answer to this inquiry has already been provided. The missing information is why you're responding in this way. Or if it's that you and Dronester have something going between you, please take it to PM's.--Percy

That about sums it up, though I don't share your hope that we will eventually move away from the current paradigm. Advances in technology and philosophy on atrocities and war seems only to increase their reach and scale.--Percy

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

I don't base my perception of the future on hope really. Rather if we keep running down the same paradigm path reality will intervene in the form of bankruptcy. We simply can't afford any more Afghanistans or Iraqs yet I too expect we will try it again. And the bill will get paid, one way or another.If instead we had invested 10% of what we wasted in invading Afghanistan and Iraq into creating jobs, education, infrastructure, health care in the Middle east and used part of the rest here At home would we be any better?

If you're ever in a war, I might have more sympathy.

This black and white 'you are either with us or against us' approach is part of the problem. I don't recall saying murder is ever justified. It's not a question of "help it".The question here is why they are doing it? What drives the people rioting to do what they are doing? Of course if everyone storming Western embassies etc. just decided that the world would be a jolly nicer place if we all just tried to get along and let bygones be bygones then they could stop. Of course they can "help it" in the sense of choosing to do it. The question is why do they choose to do what they do? So you think all the Middle East rioters, all those expressing anti-Western sentiments, all those who seem willing to give their lives for some cause that we find difficult to identify are simply doing so because they are delusional religious nutjobs who have been fed a mass of anti-US propaganda by their governments?I think that is too simplistic.The following link is to a piece shown on UK TV a couple of days ago. It isn't hyperbolic. Indeed it is quite understated. It isn't anti-US or even explicitly anti-Western in content. Indeed it is mainly about Syrian internal conflict. But I think it is quite telling of how people are driven to become "terrorists" by the situations they find themselves in. I also think the sort of situation shown is not untypical in large parts of the Middle East. It's about ten mins long. At about 8:30 the desperate father states that he would give his small son to Al Qaeda as a suicide bomber. It seems to me that he has nearly reached a point where all he has left is the ability to fight, the ability to die and his faith that it all means something. LinkEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think the point is that children die in drone attacks, we all know children are going to die in drone attacks and that the ongoing use of drone attacks in which children get killed cannot legitimately describe those child deaths as "accidents". Use of the word "targeted" is just going to lead to a "No they are not" response of the sort Drone received. But the point which he makes with his questions is a valid one: Can you at least see where he is coming from with this comparison? How would you answer his question? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

I don't see how his example is even relevant and sure I see where he is coming from, but I find his constant use of falsehoods and misrepresentation simply renders his position untenable.And of course I can see that children killed in drone attacks are collateral damage, unfortunate but perhaps justified. Drone strikes and drunk driving are two totally different situations and to try to compare the two is just silly.I'd answer his question by pointing out that is another false analogy. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

How shall we deal with it? If you plot attacks against the people of the United States least able to defend themselves, and hide yourself among a civilian population so that they may serve as hostages and human shields to give us pause against reprisal, who is actually responsible for those deaths?Like I said before, I don't envy those that have to solve the moral calculus that puts the lives of potentially thousands of Americans against the lives of Yemeni children. But it's not by our choice that we're put in that position. That really sucks. But we've not gone into those countries spoiling for a fight. We're there because those nations are either unwilling or unable to meet their obligation to restrain their own worst citizens. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

I'm getting deeply frustrated and angered by the irresponsible and thoughtless people who seem determined to prove how big their dicks are by printing the most offensive pictures of Mohammad they can think of.The defence of such actions always comes down to the fact that we can't be cowardly and roll over in the face of violent intimidation. We've got to stand up for freedom of speech and free expression!All well and good. I do agree that it's an appalling state of affairs if you find yourself self-censoring because you fear violent reprisals, and we shouldn't roll over in the face of intimidation.But let's be clear what you're doing when you print these pictures in some magazine in France, or Denmark, or the US. You're not bravely standing tall in front of someone intimidating you and refusing to back down. No-one's standing before you. If the expected response to the publication of the pictures was targeted death-threats against you, specifically, then you're actions would be a sign of moral fortitude and courage,But it's not. Anyone publishing these pictures knows it's not. No - the expected response will be mobs throwing bricks through the windows of a French embassy somewhere; or a firebomb through the window a French international school.If a crazy guy is swinging an axe at people in the street, taunting him from behind cover is neither courageous nor wise.

OK, so what about the same thing being done about Jesus H. Christ?We recoil at the mindless violence of Muslims, but what would happen if somebody blasphemed against Jesus H. Himself?

People would write letter to TV stations complaining, and rant on radio and the internet about how victimised they are.

The difference is obviously obvious to you but perhaps not to others. Without being trite or facetious can you explain where you think the difference is exactly? Particularly in terms of intent and expected outcome. Well if that was my dead children you were talking about in such terms I might well be tempted to stop being a peaceful and productive member of society, strap a bomb to my chest and take as many of those exhibiting such attitudes as I could with me.If killing people’s children isn’t the best way to turn them into terrorists I don’t know what is.. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.