3 ms·

> innocent civilians. Not by the definition we use overseas. Family and business associates of terrorists are legitimate targets. And most importantly, not in

> innocent civilians. Not by the definition we use overseas. Family and business associates of terrorists are legitimate targets. And most importantly, not innocent by the definition Timothy McVeigh was trained to use in the army. "He said he later was shocked to be ordered to execute surrendering prisoners [...]" We don't stop to consider if workers in an Iraqi military HQ are conscripts, or have taken their children to work. We'd have bombed the BATF office, and considered it a righteous kill, if we felt they had hurt us the way McVeigh felt they hurt his people. > The difference is radicalization. No, the difference is in their goals. They aren't one-issue simpletons. Assuming they had the same goals, (which they didn't) the difference is opportunity. Different skills, background, and situations give people different tools. > Timothy McVeigh straight up wanted to kill people because of his beliefs. You tell him. That'll keep us safe. But no, you're wrong. McVeigh could have killed thousands by targeting a sporting event or something. He specifically chose the office of his enemy. I'm not defending him, I'm saying that the things you're saying are feel-good mantras that would lead us to being totally ineffective if we universally acted on them. Your virtue signaling is getting in the way of you analyzing people and their motivations.

dragontamer 10y ago
> Not by the definition we use overseas. Family and business associates of terrorists are legitimate targets. Erm... right. You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court martialled if you did something like that. When the Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's home, how many children did they kill? Answer: Zero. Did they kill Bin Laden's wife? No. They didn't. She was let go. The entire family that was staying at Bin Laden's house, hiding with him, were kept safe by the Seals. What's your military background where you can say this sort of stuff with confidence? Methinks you've been reading a bit too many articles and don't have enough experience on your own to create an opinion.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > > legitimate targets. > You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court martialled if you did something like that. Fwiw, I meant 'legitimate collateral targets'. As in, we don't abort a mission if it'll blow up the family of the terrorist. We'd have dropped a bomb on an enemy government office building despite it having a nursery attached. > When the Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's home, [...] When done by bomb the standards are much lower. Also, that was a mission they knew would be examined by everyone. > Methinks you've been reading a bit too many articles and don't have enough experience on your own to create an opinion. For what it's worth, being on the ground somewhere is not one of the best ways to see the big picture. People fighting in Vietnam were often the least informed and didn't know what went on a few miles away. > What's your military background where you can say this sort of stuff with confidence? Are you saying that all the torturers at Guantanamo have been found guilty? Because otherwise I'm using the same news you have access to.

dragontamer 10y ago

> Not by the definition we use overseas. Family and business associates of terrorists are legitimate targets. Erm... right. You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court martialled if you did something like that. When the Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's home, how many children did they kill? Answer: Zero. Did they kill Bin Laden's wife? No. They didn't. She was let go. The entire family that was staying at Bin Laden's house, hiding with him, were kept safe by the Seals. What's your military background where you can say this sort of stuff with confidence? Methinks you've been reading a bit too many articles and don't have enough experience on your own to create an opinion.

EdHominem 10y ago
> > legitimate targets. > You realize that's against the Geneva convention and is the definition of a war crime in the US Military. You literally can be court martialled if you did something like that. Fwiw, I meant 'legitimate collateral targets'. As in, we don't abort a mission if it'll blow up the family of the terrorist. We'd have dropped a bomb on an enemy government office building despite it having a nursery attached. > When the Navy Seals stormed Bin Laden's home, [...] When done by bomb the standards are much lower. Also, that was a mission they knew would be examined by everyone. > Methinks you've been reading a bit too many articles and don't have enough experience on your own to create an opinion. For what it's worth, being on the ground somewhere is not one of the best ways to see the big picture. People fighting in Vietnam were often the least informed and didn't know what went on a few miles away. > What's your military background where you can say this sort of stuff with confidence? Are you saying that all the torturers at Guantanamo have been found guilty? Because otherwise I'm using the same news you have access to.