4 ms·
Of course it's possible to name incidents that sound bad on paper after spinning the narrative to serve the purpose of arguing that war=violence=bad. This happe
by JoeyBananas 5y ago
Of course it's possible to name incidents that sound bad on paper after spinning the narrative to serve the purpose of arguing that war=violence=bad. This happens all the time. That's the whole point I'm trying to make.
Any time the military kills a terrorist, a certain group of people will say "You monster! He had kids for God sakes! Look at these pictures of his family! He never got a fair trial!" When a genuine fuckup happens, these same people naturally jump on the opportunity and criticize endlessly. The American population is especially apt for this kind of behavior.
- tdeck 5y agoThey literally blew up a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders. How is your reply in any way relevant? Is the argument that we're supposed to ignore civilian deaths when judging whether war is a good idea?
- vimacs2 5y agoYeah, cute to spin it this way but it's more like the military kills a terrorist and also a large number of civilians surrounding that terrorist and then half of the media play apologetics for an operation that essentially caused the deaths of innocent people - with terrorist deaths as a rounding error. The last problem the American people have is that they're too anti-war. It's literally the opposite.