Explosions at Boston Marathon

[MrFun]

Do you know how many of those explosions in Iraq and Afghanistan were caused by terrorists?

A lot. How many other explosions were from our missiles?

[Wezil]

Since I include drones in the terrorism category the correct answer would be ``Most of them``.

[MrFun]

Since I include drones in the terrorism category the correct answer would be ``Most of them``.

Now, now. Let's be gentle with gribbler; he's very sensitive when it comes to harsh facts.

[giblets]

A lot. How many other explosions were from our missiles?

If you think drone strikes against Al Qaeda are equivalent to blowing up random civilians there is something wrong with you. The deaths at the Boston Marathon were not collateral damage.

[kentonio]

If you think drone strikes against Al Qaeda are equivalent to blowing up random civilians there is something wrong with you. The deaths at the Boston Marathon were not collateral damage.

That must be a huge relief to the Afghan people when their children get their arms and legs blown off.

[MrFun]

If you think drone strikes against Al Qaeda are equivalent to blowing up random civilians there is something wrong with you. The deaths at the Boston Marathon were not collateral damage.

Of course those who died at the Boston bombing were not collateral damage. Duh.

You're taking two instances that I've used as parallels as being literally one and the same in every detail.

[MrFun]

But I am curious.

Say a terrorist suspect is known to be hiding on the property of an innocent, unrelated family in Boston. Why wouldn't it be acceptable to simply bomb the whole property to kill the hidden terrorist and chalk up the death of the innocent family members as collateral?

[giblets]

Of course those who died at the Boston bombing were not collateral damage. Duh.

You're taking two instances that I've used as parallels as being literally one and the same in every detail.

You drew parallels between two totally different situations, acted all smug about your hatred of the US military, and acted like people who think intervening in Afghanistan and/or Iraq was worthwhile are somehow comparable to terrorists who blow people up.

[giblets]

But I am curious.

Say a terrorist suspect is known to be hiding on the property of an innocent, unrelated family in Boston. Why wouldn't it be acceptable to simply bomb the whole property to kill the hidden terrorist and chalk up the death of the innocent family members as collateral?

Gee good thing Boston has a responsible, functional government that can send in a SWAT team to get the terrorist, right?

[kentonio]

Gee good thing Boston has a responsible, functional government that can send in a SWAT team to get the terrorist, right?

You're presumably familiar with the basic principle of western justice system, that it's better for 10 guilty people to go free than a single innocent person be falsely convicted right? Does this just not apply when the innocent people are brown or when it's someones life rather than their freedom at stake?

[giblets]

You're presumably familiar with the basic principle of western justice system, that it's better for 10 guilty people to go free than a single innocent person be falsely convicted right? Does this just not apply when the innocent people are brown or when it's someones life rather than their freedom at stake?

It has never applied in a military conflict or else the British and Americans would have never bombed Dresden.

[kentonio]

It has never applied in a military conflict or else the British and Americans would have never bombed Dresden.

Dresden was a war crime. I'm also not exactly convinced that bombing Al Queda members in Afghanistan constitutes a total war situation. America must be really weak if it considers Islamic terrorism an existential threat.

[giblets]

Dresden was a war crime. I'm also not exactly convinced that bombing Al Queda members in Afghanistan constitutes a total war situation. America must be really weak if it considers Islamic terrorism an existential threat.

Existential threat? No. Threat that has already killed thousands of Americans? Yes. Why should Americans permit them the tactic of using human shields?

[kentonio]

Existential threat? No. Threat that has already killed thousands of Americans? Yes. Why should Americans permit them the tactic of using human shields?

Because you're handing them the most effective recruitment tool possible, making yourselves look like barbarians to be hated by civilized people everywhere, and utterly betraying the principles that you've claimed to base your entire national identity on?

[MrFun]

Gee good thing Boston has a responsible, functional government that can send in a SWAT team to get the terrorist, right?

And we can't use these more reasonable, effective tactics in foreign countries?