3 ms·

How is this story anything but a plea to the people to reign in their heinous military masters? You state 'we must be sure we're not being manipulated' - towar

How is this story anything but a plea to the people to reign in their heinous military masters? You state 'we must be sure we're not being manipulated' - towards what end, exactly? The logical conclusion of this opinion piece (it is marked thus) is that we should not allow our elected representatives to get away with murder. How is that in any way a negative result?

rayiner 13y ago
Fewer drone strikes are not necessarily in the national interest. Taking the horrors of drone strikes out of context is manipulative if we don't also consider the horrors of the alternative ways of achieving military objectives.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  What military objectives are your States trying to achieve by maiming and crippling Afghani children?
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    Self-preservation. By killing innocents, we incite more people to hate us, thus an increased need for more "defense". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY We failed to listen. Sorry, world.
- dantheman 13y ago
  What military objectives - we are not at war with any of these countries.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Why must war be against countries? The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan?
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan? Yes! I for one would love to live in a nation that required public informed consent, after public debate of public information, by elected representatives of an informed public, before killing people on the other side of the globe.
    - dmix 13y ago
      But at the same time we can't go to war with a group that consists of very weakly affiliated individuals who don't actively threaten us at home. The concept that Al Qaeda is a homogeneous group with a structured hierarchy ("#3 Al-qaeda leader killed") that threatens America has mostly been manufactured by the military and media: http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/dec/11/washingtons-al-qaeda-doesnt-exist-and-never-did/ http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-libert...
    - pstuart 13y ago
      So let's send drones to Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there. This is anti-national security -- all this does is pour gasoline on the fire of anti-American sentiment. People like you supporting this madness is the reason the world is going to hell. Ugh.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Saudi funded religious schools are a key formenter of anti-American Islamist sentiment around the world. Forget drones, their actions warrant larger-scale military action.
        jessaustin 13y ago
        Just so I know I'm not misunderstanding: the fact that they fund religious schools alone justifies bombings, invasions, etc.? We're through the looking glass here, people.
        13y ago
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Why must war be against countries? Because that's it's very definition. >The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Activities like weddings, hospital operations and schooling? >Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Is there anything concrete about those activities except "person X met person Y there, and person X is a terrorist" type of "intel", filtered and produced by various military agencies? Or, let me put it another way: would it be ok to bomb some part of Oklahoma to kill Timothy McVey? Or are third world lives cheaper?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      War certainly isn't defined as being between nations. Think of wars involving Viking tribes, or the Barbary wars. And yes, to any given nation, people outside the nation are cheaper. Its a basic premise of human nations.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        >War certainly isn't defined as being between nations. Think of wars involving Viking tribes, or the Barbary wars. Those are pre-nation-state examples. The tribes (or city-states, or what have you) played the role of nation states back then. >And yes, to any given nation, people outside the nation are cheaper. Its a basic premise of human nations. It's much more seen in nations that are used to being on the upper side with minimal impact on them, the same kind of nations that have built and justified racist theories of inferiority. (Hating the enemy in some capacity is always present, but thinking of him as an inferior/cheaper human is not).
    - aestra 13y ago
      This is kinda off topic but Timothy McVey actually had no ties to Oklahoma at all, so Oklahoma would be safe, he looked up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (the building he bombed) in the phone book. He was looking for a building with the max amount of federal offices in it. He grew up outside of Buffalo New York and lived somewhat of a transient life and he built the bomb with Terry Nochols in Kansas.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    For some of these politicians, pork barreling is a military objective. Every one of these drones is jobs for their constituents.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  To hell with "military objectives", what "national interest"?
- Natsu 13y ago
  What are our objectives, exactly, and how do the UAVs support them?
- TruthElixirX 13y ago
  >Fewer drone strikes are not necessarily in the national interest. Oh no. Not the national interest. How about human interest?
yetanotherphd 13y ago
In general, the distinction between manipulation and argumentation, is that argumentation attempts to get the reader to see your point of view. That is, if I believe X for reason Y, then I will say that in my article. Manipulation would be arguing X for whatever reason you think the reader will find convincing. In this case, the criticism was that the Guardian argues against drone strikes (and perhaps this particular war), by using some poor arguments e.g. that drone strikes are especially likely to kill civilians.

rayiner 13y ago

Fewer drone strikes are not necessarily in the national interest. Taking the horrors of drone strikes out of context is manipulative if we don't also consider the horrors of the alternative ways of achieving military objectives.

fit2rule 13y ago
What military objectives are your States trying to achieve by maiming and crippling Afghani children?
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  Self-preservation. By killing innocents, we incite more people to hate us, thus an increased need for more "defense". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY We failed to listen. Sorry, world.
dantheman 13y ago
What military objectives - we are not at war with any of these countries.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Why must war be against countries? The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan?
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan? Yes! I for one would love to live in a nation that required public informed consent, after public debate of public information, by elected representatives of an informed public, before killing people on the other side of the globe.
  - dmix 13y ago
    But at the same time we can't go to war with a group that consists of very weakly affiliated individuals who don't actively threaten us at home. The concept that Al Qaeda is a homogeneous group with a structured hierarchy ("#3 Al-qaeda leader killed") that threatens America has mostly been manufactured by the military and media: http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/dec/11/washingtons-al-qaeda-doesnt-exist-and-never-did/ http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-libert...
  - pstuart 13y ago
    So let's send drones to Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there. This is anti-national security -- all this does is pour gasoline on the fire of anti-American sentiment. People like you supporting this madness is the reason the world is going to hell. Ugh.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Saudi funded religious schools are a key formenter of anti-American Islamist sentiment around the world. Forget drones, their actions warrant larger-scale military action.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        Just so I know I'm not misunderstanding: the fact that they fund religious schools alone justifies bombings, invasions, etc.? We're through the looking glass here, people.
        13y ago
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Why must war be against countries? Because that's it's very definition. >The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Activities like weddings, hospital operations and schooling? >Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Is there anything concrete about those activities except "person X met person Y there, and person X is a terrorist" type of "intel", filtered and produced by various military agencies? Or, let me put it another way: would it be ok to bomb some part of Oklahoma to kill Timothy McVey? Or are third world lives cheaper?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    War certainly isn't defined as being between nations. Think of wars involving Viking tribes, or the Barbary wars. And yes, to any given nation, people outside the nation are cheaper. Its a basic premise of human nations.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >War certainly isn't defined as being between nations. Think of wars involving Viking tribes, or the Barbary wars. Those are pre-nation-state examples. The tribes (or city-states, or what have you) played the role of nation states back then. >And yes, to any given nation, people outside the nation are cheaper. Its a basic premise of human nations. It's much more seen in nations that are used to being on the upper side with minimal impact on them, the same kind of nations that have built and justified racist theories of inferiority. (Hating the enemy in some capacity is always present, but thinking of him as an inferior/cheaper human is not).
  - aestra 13y ago
    This is kinda off topic but Timothy McVey actually had no ties to Oklahoma at all, so Oklahoma would be safe, he looked up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (the building he bombed) in the phone book. He was looking for a building with the max amount of federal offices in it. He grew up outside of Buffalo New York and lived somewhat of a transient life and he built the bomb with Terry Nochols in Kansas.
- malandrew 13y ago
  For some of these politicians, pork barreling is a military objective. Every one of these drones is jobs for their constituents.
jessaustin 13y ago
To hell with "military objectives", what "national interest"?
Natsu 13y ago
What are our objectives, exactly, and how do the UAVs support them?
TruthElixirX 13y ago
>Fewer drone strikes are not necessarily in the national interest. Oh no. Not the national interest. How about human interest?

yetanotherphd 13y ago

In general, the distinction between manipulation and argumentation, is that argumentation attempts to get the reader to see your point of view. That is, if I believe X for reason Y, then I will say that in my article. Manipulation would be arguing X for whatever reason you think the reader will find convincing. In this case, the criticism was that the Guardian argues against drone strikes (and perhaps this particular war), by using some poor arguments e.g. that drone strikes are especially likely to kill civilians.