These false equivalency posts (Drones vs. Boston attack) are ridiculous

[stevenleser]

The irony is, its easier for terrorists to target only troops (combatants) of a nation state if that is what they wanted to do since nation states conveniently have bases full of them where there are few civilians. Some folks are only too happy to point out how many bases the US has all over the globe and yet miss how this is the finishing touch on any equivalency between a drone strike and a terrorist attack like Boston.

Despite all of these bases full of US service-people (and no, I don't want them attacked either), still the terrorists target civilians. Conversely, its hard for a nation state to surgically attack only terrorists since they (whether it is their intent or not) use civilians as human shields.

This being the case, I would argue it's much worse that terrorists kill civilians than for a nation state to have collateral civilian deaths in a drone raid.

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Thank You.

[RC]

2. What is the difference besides the nationality of those causing the explosions and those killed?

We fly our explosives in, they set theirs on the ground, or bury them and walk away.

Collateral damage IS killing innocent civilians. It is still murder, but just with a pretty name.

[el_bryanto]

6. It's a matter of intent - you really can't see the difference between trying to kill civilians

and killing them on accident? I'm not in favor of drone strikes, but to say they are the same is, as the OP suggests, a false equivalency.

[RC]

9. It's only an accident when we do it and not when they do it?

We target Al-Qaeda #2's in homes and on the streets even when we know there are innocent civilians around.

[el_bryanto]

13. Did they time the drone strike to make sure the streets were full of civilians?

Did they purposefully kill a bunch of civilians along with this guy to make a political point?

Bryant

[Maedhros]

60. Timing of drone strikes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/24/un-examine-uk-afghanistan-drone-strikes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-drone-tweets-reveal-double-tap-plan-2012-12

The by-now well-known "double tap" employed by drone operators specifically targets first responders to a strike.

Drone strikes are not the same as event bombings. The outrage, horror and sympathy we feel as a result of the Boston Marathon bombing are entirely appropriate. We should feel the same sense of outrage, horror and sympathy when a Hellfire missile explodes at a wedding in Yemen, and we should question whether the mission objective of our drone campaign justifies the amount of suffering we cause to civilian bystanders.

We should not empathize less with the Boston Marathon bombing victims, but more with the innocent victims of our military aggression.

[sabrina 1]

66. So you think that when George Bush went to Iraq he went there honestly and gave orders to avoid

killing and torturing and falsely imprisoning civilians for years and years without charges, many of them tortured to death in those prisons while their loved ones desperately tried to get them released and their lawyers pleas were ignored?

Have we held anyone accountable for those deliberate crimes yet against innocent civilians, many of them children, some raped and sodomized?

If we have not, then I see no difference frankly.

Pakistanis eg, have protested the killings of their children by drone, they have tried to sue for compensation, they have appealed for justice. But all have been ignored. So it seems to me we have no excuses at all unless you agreed that Bush's war was justified in some way. An argument that is hard to make since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We just barged into a country that had done nothing to us, didn't even threaten to do anything, lying about the reasons why and killing countless civilians in a country we had no business being in.

It is the equivalent of someone's brother breaking into someone's else's home, shooting the place up, killing people who are in there and then accidentally killing a few neighbors, then claiming the neighbors are not your fault, they are 'collateral damage'. The fact that you illegally entered the home armed to the teeth makes you responsible for every death that occurs there and in the surrounding areas. If you, the brother are not a criminal like your sibling, you will condemn those crimes. Otoh, if you try to defend them BECAUSE it is your brother, then you become complicit.

Me, I prefer not to be complicit in mass murder which is how I always viewed Bush's Iraq War and still do. He should have been prosecuted for war crimes, which I think we all USED to agree about. But he wasn't, her was protected. Which says so much about our country that is beyond sad. Especially for the victims.

[Wellstone ruled]

3. Really this is the modern day news reporting.

Make crap up and report it as facts. Orwell's 1984.

[zappaman]

4. Big REC and kick! n/t

[The Straight Story]

5. Well, you are missing one thing here

We attack that which is easiest to do so - a drone can hit a wedding party, truck full of civilians, etc without putting itself in much danger.

It is easier to attack a target that is not a base where there are well armed people (which some hope won't be a problem here much longer) to defend it.

Looking at the rhetoric, especially from the right, all muslims are game (use nukes, kill them all, etc) and it does not matter if we kill civilians (and I think many on the right don't see any as muslim as a civilian).

When the same tactics are applied in an equal but opposite direction it is suddenly terrorism.

We call them enemy combatants as they fund attacks, they call us the same perhaps because we vote for and pay for military attacks there.

It is all about semantics. When you boil it right down it becomes much like the old days when we came to America. The Indians were the bad guys, we were the good guys just trying to defend ourselves.

When progressives look back at history, and look at us today, we see similar patterns of labeling and using those labels to justify actions that we would call terrorism/wrong if done against us.

I say can both are wrong without detracting from either.

[marions ghost]

70. "I can say both are wrong without detracting from either."

right.

[99Forever]

7. "There is none so blind...

... as he, that simply refuses to see."

The children killed by our drones, intended or not, are every bit as civilian and innocent as the people hurt yesterday. That you don't care to acknowledge them as such, speaks loudly about you.

[el_bryanto]

15. If someone causes a car wreck and kills a child, should they be subject to the same penalties

as someone who murders a child? In both cases the child is civilian and innocent. Most people around here aren't keen on the death penalty, but life imprisonment?

Bryant

[demcoat]

19. Not if he does it multiple times after he has been caught doing it.

If it was just once, then you can compare it with a driver accidentally hitting a child.

[stevenleser]

56. Caught doing what? Having a car accident? nt

[morningfog]

45. If someone is mowing down hundreds of people

with their car and they kill some kids, too, yes they are murderers just the same.

[stevenleser]

29. There are none so blind as those that go around creating false equivalencies everywhere. nt

[99Forever]

62. Keep repeating the same drivel, over and over...

... perhaps you'll convince yourself to actually believe it.

I know better, I have a conscience. You should try it sometime.

[stevenleser]

75. You should be looking in the mirror when you say that. nt

[99Forever]

85. Let me know when you've done that about the issue..

... (ie: USA drones killing children) of this thread, hypocrite, then we'll talk.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. I think you're making things up.

Nothing the OP said in any way implies that the victims of drone strikes are in any way less civilian or less innocent than the victims of the Boston bombing.

That's what you want them to have said, not what they actually did say.

That *you* don't care to acknowledge what they actually said, and instead make up falsehoods about them that you can attack in comfort, speaks loudly about *you*, I fear.

What they actually said was that it's less immoral to undertake an action with a worthwhile goal but also an unavoidable risk of accidentally killing innocent civilians than it is to intentionally kill innocent civilians as an end in itself.

[99Forever]

63. Innocent dead children are innocent dead children.

Just because they have brown skin, pray to a different god, and speak a language other than English, doesn't change a thing. It is murder, pure and simple and it is sanctioned, planned, and carried out by the government of the United States of America. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not, is irrelevant.

That you want to pin another name on it, just shows where your humanity ends. I can't fix that.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. Well, your title at least is correct.

But your implication that my views are motivated by racism is, once again, making things up, plain and simple.

Also, go find a dictionary and look up the work "murder". It's *not* a synonym of "taking an action that results in someone's death".

[99Forever]

67. Dead kids and you're talking about definitions.

'Nuf said.

[stevenleser]

80. Definitions? Like 'dead'? You don't like definitions? Language is how we perceive the world.

Nice try though. Your melodramatic appeals to emotion show the weakness of your argument.

[99Forever]

84. I know the definition of neo-liberal too...

... and all of the shitty things they do.

[stevenleser]

94. No, you dont. Neoliberal refers only to economic policy. nt

[99Forever]

122. Bullshit.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. You're simply making things up.

Nothing the OP said in any way implies that the victims of drone strikes are in any way less civilian or less innocent than the victims of the Boston bombing.

That's what you want them to have said, not what they actually did say.

That *you* don't care to acknowledge what they actually said, and instead make up falsehoods about them that you can attack in comfort, speaks loudly about *you*, I fear.

What they actually said was that it's less immoral to undertake an action with a worthwhile goal but also an unavoidable risk of accidentally killing innocent civilians than it is to intentionally kill innocent civilians as an end in itself.

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. You're seriously trying to create a relative scale between governments slaughtering civilians

and terrorists slaughtering civilians, and then title the post "These false equivalency posts (Drones vs. Boston attack) are ridiculous"?

[Solly Mack]

11. Wonderfully to the point.

[Fresh_Start]

20. +1 nt

nt

[morningfog]

37. Succinct. Agreed.

[G_j]

55. +1

[marions ghost]

71. yeah

Our killing is more noble than their killing.

[undeterred]

87. + a brazillion

[frazzled]

10. One tangential drone thing I've been thinking about

in terms of security for such large-scale, ungated public events: wouldn't an unarmed surveillance drone be an excellent method for monitoring suspicious activity, and possibly preventing (or at least documenting) such terrorist acts? Helicopters are impractical, because they make too much noise and air disturbance, and of course are more expensive and less ecological to run.

I know this is not a response to your false equivalency argument (with which I pretty much agree). But it's in the same spirit of calling out bad thinking. Drones, contrary to popular opinion, are neither evil nor good (though they're universally seen as evil here). They're just instruments. Of course, most people are thinking of armed drones being sent on targeted kill missions. But drones could be put to good use in protecting large public events, as well as for dangerous search and rescue missions (stranded mountain climbers) or environmental assessments, etc.

I'd finally like to thank you for pointing out the issues of modern, asymetrical warfare.

[kenlayisalive]

83. Nothing to do with the OP but...

I love the way you think of drones... you compare them to helicopters as they don't disturb the air, and somehow are "green" and don't make noise... Its like you've taken the antiseptic way people imagine that they kill without death and transferred it to their other physical qualities as well.

I don't know if it is you or it is some incredible PR coup by the Boeing, but either way it's pretty f*cking strange.

[frazzled]

90. I think you need to inform yourself

and rely less on slogans and stereotypes. Science is something real, and neutral in itself: it's the uses to which we put it that can produce good or bad.

I thought the science rejectors were all on the right side, but I guess I'm wrong.

[LittleBlue]

12. An awful lot of guilt needing

assuaging today.

This is something you can only deal with internally. No one can make you feel guilty unless deep down, you already feel some measure of guilt.

[Fumesucker]

16. Come to think of it I believe you are correct

I had the phrase the guilty flee when none pursueth in my mind when reading some of these posts.

[Rex]

14. Do you think the victims care about the difference?

I know the point you are trying to make, but do you really think any family that lost their child to either such violent tactic will make that same distinction? Somehow I doubt they will.

[stevenleser]

27. Yes. I think they do. It would matter to me.

The circumstances that would cause the loss of my child would matter a great deal to me. Unless you are suggesting these people are too dumb to understand the difference?

[Rex]

31. Where did I say people are dumb?

Well you are being subjective, so I thought I would to. I don't think they would care what killed their child and would want revenge. Just my opinion.

[morningfog]

38. Are you saying you would be understanding

if a nation state killed a family member? It would be easier for you to take because you would rationally consider the intent of the strike? Do I have it right?

[Rex]

41. Also would he want revenge against that state?

I so wonder.

[bvar22]

17. Equal, No.

I don't believe I have read any post here claiming they are equivalent.

However, there IS a valid basis for a compare & contrast examination.
Inquiring, honest minds will do so,
and explore the possibility for a connection or a relationship.

Bombs are exploding, innocents are being killed and maimed.
Some of the exploding bombs have OUR names on them.

There is little or nothing I can do about the ones for which we are not directly responsible.
I CAN and DO raise my voice in protest about the bombs that have MY name on them.

It comes down to whether one sees himself as a member of an exceptional small community,
or sees himself as a member of the World Community,
grieves the useless deaths of anyone, white, black, or brown,
and seeks PEACE instead of REVENGE and CONTROL.

US(A) vs THEM
or
We're ALL in this together

[dreamnightwind]

49. Thanks, excellent post - nt

[stevenleser]

53. LOL the equivalency posts are all over DU and places like antiwar.com

you can compare and contrast a seat cushion with armed robbery. That isnt the issue.

[msongs]

21. so your murdered women and kids are Are more valuable then their murdered women and kids? nice nt

[stevenleser]

23. Straw man. can you make an argument without using a logical fallacy? nt

[WonderGrunion]

74. Yes they are

See, that isn't so tough to state.

[cpwm17]

22. Predictably, you have a problem comparing victims of US Government violence

to victims of stateless terrorists since you don't think all human life is equally valuable. The authority or rationale of the perpetrator is of no consequence to the victim.

You think there is some magical process that changes the value of the victim by the authority of the perpetrator. You've consistently shown yourself to be an authoritarian. This is a great example.

This thought process is a major reason the US is such a war-mongering nation. This needs to change.

[stevenleser]

24. Like others, you create a straw man. Try not using a logical fallacy. nt

[morningfog]

43. You start with a logical fallacy. What do you expect?

[Warren DeMontague]

26. I think the timing sucks.

This has nothing to do with "drones", at least not as far as we know yet. Meanwhile, it's a terrible tragedy and the victims deserve respect instead of changing the subject.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Gandhi

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy. - Gandhi

[stevenleser]

30. And he was wrong about that. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. And, the difference is?

In both cases innocents died, people were maimed, because someone took the right to kill/maim into their hands for some reason.

The dead and maimed are still dead and the killers are still free and some are called heroes and will go untried and unpunished for their crimes.

[whatchamacallit]

35. Right, Steve the Lesser is going to school Gandhi

[stevenleser]

42. I don't fear disagreeing with anyone when they are wrong.

Particularly people so immature they play games with people's names.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

61. Here's another quote from Ghandi.

"Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.”

Yes, he was a great man.

No, not everything he said was a good principle to live your live by.

Argument from authority is almost always a bad idea.

[marions ghost]

72. chuckle

[morningfog]

39. Wow. At least you stand by your ignorance!

[aandegoons]

32. Your right one of them we can easily avoid.

The other we can't. But hey as long as all them little kids in Pakistan are the ones doing the dying.

[morningfog]

40. Hell, Steve says it for a good cause. They should

be thankful!

[Carolina]

36. Wrong

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. It was a completely innocent nation, full of innocent non-combatants. Yet the US waged a Shock and Awe bombing campaign against it, killing, maiming and destroying the lives of untold thousands (maybe millions) of innocents.

Now we have drones. As Glenn Greenwald wrote in The Guardian http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/04/16-3:

One particularly illustrative example ... was a re-tweet from Washington Examiner columnist David Freddoso, proclaiming:
"...the idea of secondary bombs designed to kill the first responders is just sick. How does anyone become that evil?"

I'd bet a good amount of money that the person saying it - and the vast majority of other Americans - have no clue that targeting rescuers with "double-tap" attacks is precisely what the US now does with its drone program and other forms of militarism. If most Americans knew their government and military were doing this, would they react the same way as they did to yesterday's Boston attack... Whatever rage you're feeling toward the perpetrator of this Boston attack, that's the rage -- in sustained form -- that people across the world feel toward the US for killing innocent people in their countries. Whatever sadness you feel for yesterday's victims, the same level of sadness is warranted for the innocent people whose lives are ended by American bombs. However profound a loss you recognize the parents and family members of these victims to have suffered, that's the same loss experienced by victims of US violence...

Fox News' Ed Henry quoted a senior administration official as saying: "When multiple (explosive) devices go off that's an act of terrorism." Is that what terrorism is? "When multiple (explosive) devices go off"? If so, that encompasses what the US does in the world on a very regular basis.

Sadly, a violent nation begets violence. The equivalency is not false at all. Violence, by us and against us, is a reflection of US

[stevenleser]

44. Wrong what? I said nothing about Iraq. Don't invent things I haven't said. nt

[Carolina]

46. If you don't get it

forget it. Innocents were needlessly, senselessly targeted in Iraq as they are by our drone campaign. That's the point you clearly miss. And if you read the whole post you'd see what happens with our drones.

You are wrong; the equivalency is not false. Clearly, though, I am wasting my time as there are none so blind as those who will not see...

Bye, bye!

[stevenleser]

47. The equivalency is false, Iraq was based on a lie and was a war crime from the beginning.

Your entire line of reasoning is bonkers.

[TheKentuckian]

48. The privileged perspective of the man on the trigger end of the superpower.

The expectation that these folks fight us on our terms is arrogant and none too logical.

It is just not a comparable or parallel situation. They don't have any bases, no plausible capability to attack ours, and are substantially un-resourced. They aren't hiding behind civilians, they are civilians. Most live under authoritarian regimes, often backed with our money and might.

To muddy the waters even more, I think their is some extreme dishonesty about what we are doing too. What the hell justification do we have for targeting "insurgents" (aka nothing to do at all with any attacks on us) and worse "combatants" especially when such folks are defined as males between teenagers and middle age that happen to be on the wrong end of our munitions?

Terrorism is a usually tactic utilized against targets one can't go toe to toe with their opposition, though I think a fair argument can be made that "shock and awe" type barrages are also terror as are the drone attacks.

[stevenleser]

52. False equivalency created by people who twist facts to fit ideology instead of vice versa. nt

[zeemike]

64. All children are equal.

But some are more equal than others....and to compare their death is a false equivalency
And all bombs kill, but some are more justified than others..and to compare them is a false equivalency.
Life itself is a false equivalency cause some are more deserving of it than others.
Thus little brown kids killed in a far away land is collateral damage and little kids killed at home is a horrible murder crime...not comparable at all.

[stevenleser]

77. No, this isnt nearly that hard. An attack where civilians are intentionally targeted is not the same

as one where civilians are accidentally within range.

I'm sorry that presents such a challenge to you. It's not that hard.

[zeemike]

88. Really?....what army was the target a member of?

What country are we at war with?...Oh no country at all...and no army at all?....that would mean the targets were civilians.
But they were bad guys....well who said that?....did a court of law declared them bad guys?
If you don't have answers to that question then you are in violation of the constitution and the laws of our land...that makes whoever ordered those drone strikes in violation of the law and the spirit of it...and makes you an apologist for it.

And no it is not that hard to believe the spin put on it....just say freedom a few times and all is justified...but it is harder to face the truth for some than others.

[stevenleser]

92. A distinction without a difference. A combatant is a combatant. nt

[zeemike]

95. Then they have the right to capture and torture our soldiers.

Or or contractors or diplomats...right?
Of is this a rule that only applies to one side?... which is to say it has nothing to do with morality at all...but who has the power.
Once you abandon morality this is what you get...and it leads only down as history shows us.

[stevenleser]

96. A combatant can attack the combatants of the other side, yes.

Torture is torture. I would argue that torturers should all be in front of the ICC.

[treestar]

50. K&R

[MannyGoldstein]

51. There are important similarities and differences nt

[bluestate10]

54. Some people are so desperate to find equivalency that they make insane interconnections. nt

[glowing]

58. No... One dead child here or there is a dead child.

I think this is perfectly reasonable to use this as an example to help resonate with people in this country what is being done by the Govt in their name with their tax money by our brave soldiers. I think a sniper is more appropriate than taking out a wedding or a funeral. I don't think a child or innocent person's death should be taken so lightly; no matter what color, religion, language, or regional area they inhabit. This type of attack is what others are facing nearly everyday in some parts of the world. That is terror no matter who is at the end of the IED, detonated device, or even a drone strike.

Collateral damage is just a fancy word for taking the inhumane killing of innocent civilians and compartmentalizing the justification for ending a life. Is it not time that we try to give peace a chance... A real chance? Don't we owe it to ourselves and our children and all the world's children to give them a shot at knowing peace and growing up without fear of doing enjoyable things like a sporting event, a wedding, or just going to a market for food?

[brett_jv]

68. In the grand, cosmic, existential sense of 'which is worse' ...

I will grant that what the terrorist(s) did yesterday is plainly 'worse' than what our drones do in Pakistan and other places.

HOWEVER ... as has been mentioned many times, and which you for some random reason feel compelled to poo-poo as a 'straw-man' (when it is really not one) ... to the VICTIMS and their families ... it's basically an irrelevant distinction.

Let's just say, hypothetically, that the death and destruction caused yesterday in Boston was perpetrated by a drone from Pakistan. Let's say that the target was an ex-soldier, Christian, White, Bostonian fellow. Lets say he was *suspected* by Pakistani military intelligence as having been *involved* with a group that had blown up a bomb in Pakistan that killed some people there at some point, and they had 'actionable intel' that the guy was gonna be near the finish line so they shot a friggin missile from their drone in order to try to 'take him out', and the carnage we saw yesterday was what ensued.

Now I ask you ... how pissed off would we ALL be at Pakistan? You think the survivors and the families of the innocent dead would want to exact revenge? Would we as a country give a FLYING CRAP about Pakistan's existential 'moral high ground', or would we say "that whole country are fucked up asshole terrorists!".

Lemme give you another 'what-if' to further illustrate. Let's say ... the bomber turned out to be the daughter of a murder victim, who's 'goal' in the bombing had been to take out the guy that killed her dad, who she knew was going to be sitting right next to where she placed the bomb.

Now I ask you ... how many people that got maimed, or lost a loved one yesterday are going to show up to the courthouse and ask the judge to grant the bomber leniency ... after all, she was 'legitimately aggrieved'. How many? NONE, that's how many. 99.9% of them are going to want her to FRY, or at least spend her life in prison.

Why? Because the JUSTIFICATIONS for this kind of stuff DOESN'T FRIGGIN' MATTER to the VICTIMS.

You can complain about 'false equivalencies', but I believe that most people that bring up comparison re: what the USA does in these other countries, with our drones and our military in general ... are bringing it up because they want people to consider that we as a Nation are inviting just this sort of blowback by engaging in the WoT in the ways that we're doing.

The people in these countries feel teh SAME WAY about us ... as we would feel about Pakistan in the drone-strike scenario that I described above. The VICTIMS DO NOT CARE about the 'justifications' for stuff like this. They just hate the people that did this to them or their loved ones, and they tend to want revenge.

Bottom-line, with our drone strikes, shock and awe, etc ... the US military are *acting* as terrorists, too ... afa the people being terrorized are concerned.

So, in a certain sense, your 'point' about the moral high ground is actually pretty irrelevant, and the people espousing these 'equivalencies' you find so distressing ... are actually speaking about the only 'reality' that actually 'matters' in the grand scheme of things.

[marions ghost]

73. the only reality that matters

[stevenleser]

78. It wouldn't be irrelevant to me and I doubt it is irrelevant to the families of the victims.

It makes a big difference to me if someone intentionally kills a member of my family or if someone does so by accident.

If the police accidentally kill a family member in a hostage situation when they storm the edifice where that family member is being held, it is vastly different to me than if someone murders them in cold blood.

I have no idea why you insist on not seeing that.

[morningfog]

86. Your analogies are full of fail.

Drone strikes are long term, constant acts of war. We don't accidentally kill innocents in hostage situations. We carry out regular strikes and disregard whether innocents are killed.

[we can do it]

69. Fully agree thanks.

[MNBrewer]

76. They're not false "equivalency" and they're not ridiculous!!

[stevenleser]

79. They are very much both. nt

[MNBrewer]

81. No, you're wrong. Nt.

[Bonobo]

82. You're right. They are not equivalent.

The strong have an additional burden of responsibility to use their power carefully.

When beaten long enough, those without power strike back however they can.

You may wish to separate the issue of US killings overseas from that same type of violence being visited upon them, but from any reasonable POV, the two are related.

[kentuck]

89. About the same differene as...

napalming a village from the air and burning it hut by hut from the ground. The people are still dead.

[redgreenandblue]

91. A fine example of brazenly arrogant whitesplaining.

Please do travel to Pakistan and explain to a drone surviver how what happened to them was not as bad as what happened in Boston.

[stevenleser]

93. A fine example of wharrgarbl. nt

[Rex]

97. I think you are seeing people disagreeing with you.

A fine example of this forum. So you don't like the answers, doesn't change the facts. People think drone attacks are an act of terror, I agree with them. The difference is terrorist intentionally target civilians, whereas drone indirectly kill civilians. I KNOW the difference, but I doubt the victims care about your technicality.

How do you feel about making new enemies indirectly? Not the smartest foreign policy imo.

[stevenleser]

98. It was wharrgarbl. I am multiracial. I am not white and thus I do not 'whitesplain' nt

[Rex]

99. I mean in general in your thread.

I don't know what whitesplain means.

[stevenleser]

100. Whitesplain="paternalistic lecture given by Whites toward a person of color." Since I am multiracial

I do not whitesplain.

The comments disagreeing with me all have flawed logic.

[Rex]

101. No I disagree, they make good points.

How exactly is it generally flawed logic? Okay in 41 years old and that is the first I've ever seen that word, but will take your word for it.

[stevenleser]

103. The two things will never be equivalent. Intentionally hurting civilians vs accidentally hurting

civilians in an attack will never be equivalent.

[Rex]

105. Okay I agree, but that is not their general point.

Their point is the outcome is the same, you end up with victims that want revenge no matter what the delivery system. Do you disagree with this? So far you haven't answered that question and a lot of people have asked or hinted at that.

[stevenleser]

106. Yes it is. They equate the two.If that isnt what they were doing, there would be no point to linking

the two. There would be no point in mentioning Boston and drone attacks in the same OP. They believe there is some equivalency there.

[Rex]

107. So you won't answer my question then?

Okay, that's fine. I wondered if you would or not.

[stevenleser]

110. Just re-read your post. My answer is no, I do not agree. nt

[Rex]

112. Okay, well then you are completely wrong in this thread and invalidated your own argument.

Which is why you won't directly answer. NP.

[stevenleser]

113. No, and I proved my point in 111 nt

[Rex]

115. Not at all that is a weak analogy.

Nt.

[stevenleser]

117. No, it isnt. nt

[Fumesucker]

102. You have yet to state *exactly* what the logical flaws in the arguments are

Just saying something is flawed logic proves exactly nothing, you have to demonstrate and point out the flaws.

Here's a list of common logical fallacies, perhaps you can tell us just which of the logical fallacies are being committed here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

[stevenleser]

104. Yes I have. Repeatedly. And I just did again in 103. nt

[Fumesucker]

108. So which logical fallacy is it then?

I can assure you that to the people on the ground the practical effects of drone strike are remarkably similar to what happened in Boston.

Going about your business on a regular day when all of a sudden with no warning there's a huge explosion followed immediately by injured people screaming and dead ones doing what dead people do.

We are not making any friends, just more bitter enemies with what we do, the reaction to the Boston bombing should make that fairly obvious to all but the densest humans. Even here on liberal touchy-feely DU people want the blood of the bombers, you evidently think Pakistanis are more morally evolved than Americans.

ETA: And that's not even getting into the "double tap" that some drone strikes have involved, in order to kill those who might come to the aid of their fellow humans. You really can't get much lower than that. I remember when the Olympic bomber did that to a reproductive health clinic in Atlanta, *everyone* was outraged by it.

[stevenleser]

111. I disagree. The French, Belgians, Poles, etc. did not blame the US or the Brits or Russians for

bombing/shelling/attacking their cities when they were occupied by the Germans. I believe all people are capable of understanding the difference between attacks that are intentionally aimed at them, and attacks where they are caught in the crossfire.

[Rex]

114. That is a very weak analogy.

With a huge amount of holes.

[stevenleser]

116. No, it isn't. nt

[Rex]

118. Yes, it is.

If that is your best, then you lost this debate hands down.

[stevenleser]

119. No, I explained my last contention. You haven't. You lose. nt

[Fumesucker]

121. The French, Belgians, Poles and so forth were occupied by German military forces at the time.

In Afghanistan at least *we* are the occupying military force and in Pakistan there is no occupying military force.

Turn it around, a Pakistani drone just eliminated a terrorist at the Boston Marathon and there was some collateral damage, what will the response of the American people be?

[Rex]

120. It is a somewhat disingenuous argument made on emotions and not logic.

Hence why he lost this debate once that was ascertained.

[Rex]

109. That the death of civilians (indirectly) in one country by a drone

is not the same a terrorists (directly) blowing up civilians. That is what he is saying is not equivalent. I understand what he is saying, but some people here are saying that the outcome is the same. I don't know if he is purposely missing that point or just won't answer it, because their is equivalency in the total outcome.