2 ms·
>> The fact that the US military has no qualms >> with killing random innocent civilians - >> including children - in their strikes >> against (assumed
by m0zg 8y ago
>> The fact that the US military has no qualms
>> with killing random innocent civilians -
>> including children - in their strikes
>> against (assumed) terrorists
That's bullshit. The US military cares a lot about not causing collateral damage. Wars could be much deadlier, fought much more quickly, and for much less money if it did not.
- gmueckl 8y agoBut the US accepts collateral damage willingly by executing attacks that will harm or kill bystanders as part of the plan.
- m0zg 8y agoThe US would rather have no collateral damage at all. Hence the expensive high precision weapons and all that. If you are suggesting that the US should not kill terrorists, that's not a realistic proposition.
- gmueckl 8y agoHm... why do you believe that not killing these people is not an option? Do you have first hand experience with them? I don't. All I have to go on are news stories and occasional annecdotes from people in the affected areas. That does not make a very complete picture. How successful would these people be without any intervention by the US?
- m0zg 8y agoNo I don't. Some people objectively deserve to die. See e.g. ISIS, radical islamists, etc.