171–180 of 319 posts
Now imagine “U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in France” and feel the difference (which is non-existent). Then it goes on tv and reads the list of this morning’s evil men who must be stopped.
As much as I would love the US out of Afghanistan, there’s a war on over there. Yours is a disingenuous comparison.
This is how you create terrorists. What do you think the children and friends feelings towards the US will be from now on? People get radicalized for much less than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counts for what? My question was about the basis for terrorism, not about the facts of bombing campaigns.
Terrorism is a label slapped on violence that breaks some arbitrary rules someone thinks ought to be followed. Were the founding fathers terrorists? The British sure thought so... You can be the gatekeeper of that word all you want, just know that you're playing that role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear this a lot but is there any basis for this? Were any of the 9/11 attackers widowed/orphaned by the US? Or were they just whipped up in religious fervor and an abstract idea of a cultural war with the US? And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims…
> And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims than their non-directly-affected peers? Yes, of course it does. Hell, even on the recent 9/11 HN thread there were people who said they joined the military after the towers collapsed. It's only natural reacti…
Considering America has concentrated a large number of bombs on Afghanistan, why are they underrepresented in terrorist bombing of American targets? Why didn't the US see a spate of attacks from Cambodia in the 70s?
These are all great stories that have been talked about. But unless there is some kind of supporting evidence, these are still just stories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s just not a loop. Jihadists aren’t in a loop. That’s a myth. Jihad is real to them, and they are attacking non believers. The stated motivation for the 9/11 attacks were the presence of U.S. airbases in Saudi Arabia. Not revenge for some past hurt or attack. Why does everyone presume that what they say isn’t what they mean?
Oh they are in the loop, even if they don't see it. This is how religion is used to get people to do things. You can read anything you like from a religious book; you'll find justification for anything if you comb for quotes enough. This makes religion a glue, or an amplifier, not a prescriber of behavior. Consider Christianity - the religion that gave us half of what's nice about the Western culture. That same relig…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s just not a loop. Jihadists aren’t in a loop. That’s a myth. Jihad is real to them, and they are attacking non believers. The stated motivation for the 9/11 attacks were the presence of U.S. airbases in Saudi Arabia. Not revenge for some past hurt or attack. Why does everyone presume that what they say isn’t what they mean?
Someone else in this thread posted this [0]. They don't say what you tell us they say. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver
Did you read your own source? Yes, there's more to it than what OP said, but it is true that this was a motivation.
Notice the wording - the drone targeted the workers. The drone didn’t make a decision and target the workers, the drone pilot targeted the workers, and whomever was standing behind them gave the order to launch the missle. The whole “I’m just doing what the computer said” defense only works in movies.
Imagine being the person (even if you had little personal autonomy in the matter) who pulled the trigger or pressed the button. Imagine finding out what you had done. Would it break you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is how you create terrorists. Um no, you are wrong. _What USA does_ is terrorism. When you drop bombs on people out of nowhere, that's called terrorism. Sorry if you're an American but you've got some learning to do about the biggest terrorist organization in the world before calling others a terrorist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRbnPA3fd5U
It sounds like you judge people by the consequences of their actions rather than their intentions. I tend to agree with that way of thinking but many people do the opposite and believe intentions are the morally superior way of judging good and bad. The trouble with judging by actions is it makes everybody bad, including the judge! I suspect that's why people don't like it. Since nearly everyone believes their own in…
It is well known that drone strikes are terribly inaccurate and therefore the risk for civilian casualties is high.
Notice the wording - the drone targeted the workers. The drone didn’t make a decision and target the workers, the drone pilot targeted the workers, and whomever was standing behind them gave the order to launch the missle. The whole “I’m just doing what the computer said” defense only works in movies.
It doesn't work even in the movies. Last American movie I watched which featured a drone strike against civilians, involved an advanced AI that recommended not to proceed because of insufficient information, that got overruled by the president. The drone strike hit a wedding, which led to increase in attack on Americans, making the AI attempt to kill the president and most of the US government, following the "protect…
Notice the wording - the drone targeted the workers. The drone didn’t make a decision and target the workers, the drone pilot targeted the workers, and whomever was standing behind them gave the order to launch the missle. The whole “I’m just doing what the computer said” defense only works in movies.