|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Bisutopia19328 Posts
On July 20 2016 23:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 22:56 BisuDagger wrote:On July 20 2016 22:44 Dan HH wrote:On July 20 2016 16:32 acker wrote:
Did they actually talk about jobs today? I missed the stream. They mostly talked about Clinton. "We will put coal miners and oil drillers back to work" is pretty much the only specific job-related thing they said in the hour I watched. For WV it's a major issue. Even if you care for the environment, killing coal puts a whole state out of business. Those workers don't have skills to perform other jobs and coal drives the WV economy. The transition has to be done better then, "We are saving earth, sorry about your jobs and lively hood". Do we blame politicians in Washington for not halting the reduction of coal use/mining or do we blame the state for not working to diversify their economy? Not to say Washington should just ignore the concerns of the states but the downsides of coal have been known for a while. Coal regions across the world have been devastated when mines closed for decades, this isn't something new and WV knew its day would come. But politicians are really good at shoving problems forward and hoping the next guy has to deal with it and not them.
I blame both for sure. The state is highly responsible for not working their way off coal and training its citizens better in other fields. DC is just landing the final blow in what has been a long time coming. I have an issue with a Nation Wide emissions regulation that will put an unfair burden on some states that can meet these standards in required time. In the ideal world, each state needs to work with congress to build their own seperate timelines that create a fair and reasonable solution.
|
On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway.
They are critizised for this in europe.
But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy".
I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem.
|
On July 20 2016 23:17 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2016 22:56 BisuDagger wrote:On July 20 2016 22:44 Dan HH wrote:On July 20 2016 16:32 acker wrote:
Did they actually talk about jobs today? I missed the stream. They mostly talked about Clinton. "We will put coal miners and oil drillers back to work" is pretty much the only specific job-related thing they said in the hour I watched. For WV it's a major issue. Even if you care for the environment, killing coal puts a whole state out of business. Those workers don't have skills to perform other jobs and coal drives the WV economy. The transition has to be done better then, "We are saving earth, sorry about your jobs and lively hood". Do we blame politicians in Washington for not halting the reduction of coal use/mining or do we blame the state for not working to diversify their economy? Not to say Washington should just ignore the concerns of the states but the downsides of coal have been known for a while. Coal regions across the world have been devastated when mines closed for decades, this isn't something new and WV knew its day would come. But politicians are really good at shoving problems forward and hoping the next guy has to deal with it and not them. I blame both for sure. The state is highly responsible for not working their way off coal and training its citizens better in other fields. DC is just landing the final blow in what has been a long time coming. I have an issue with a Nation Wide emissions regulation that will put an unfair burden on some states that can meet these standards in required time. In the ideal world, each state needs to work with congress to build their own seperate timelines that create a fair and reasonable solution.
I would argue that having an authority tell you how its going to be is highly beneficial. When a state can just come up with its own date, it can be under ideal circumstances where the original goal is not a priority. Let's say it takes $10 to comply with regulations. Well, this other thing costs $3, something else $4, and so, because of budget reasons, the $10 regulations get pushed back because the other $7 of stuff is considered higher priority by that state. By allowing states to determine their own timelines, you essentially get rid of the entire point of requirements to begin with. Being able to control the timeline basically lets you control if it even happens. There are plenty of examples throughout history where this has been the case.
It's not much different than big projects at work. Sometimes you need to prioritize and some lower priority issues get pushed back a bit because your boss said x is more important than y.
|
United States43868 Posts
On July 20 2016 22:56 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 22:44 Dan HH wrote:On July 20 2016 16:32 acker wrote:
Did they actually talk about jobs today? I missed the stream. They mostly talked about Clinton. "We will put coal miners and oil drillers back to work" is pretty much the only specific job-related thing they said in the hour I watched. For WV it's a major issue. Even if you care for the environment, killing coal puts a whole state out of business. Those workers don't have skills to perform other jobs and coal drives the WV economy. The transition has to be done better then, "We are saving earth, sorry about your jobs and lively hood".
There is actually a textbook example of what not to do with the north of England under Thatcher and an awful lot has been written on the subject of what Thatcher should have done. It mostly consists of generous retraining grants and generous tax and other incentives for new industries to relocate to the area.
|
Bisutopia19328 Posts
On July 20 2016 23:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:17 BisuDagger wrote:On July 20 2016 23:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2016 22:56 BisuDagger wrote:On July 20 2016 22:44 Dan HH wrote:On July 20 2016 16:32 acker wrote:
Did they actually talk about jobs today? I missed the stream. They mostly talked about Clinton. "We will put coal miners and oil drillers back to work" is pretty much the only specific job-related thing they said in the hour I watched. For WV it's a major issue. Even if you care for the environment, killing coal puts a whole state out of business. Those workers don't have skills to perform other jobs and coal drives the WV economy. The transition has to be done better then, "We are saving earth, sorry about your jobs and lively hood". Do we blame politicians in Washington for not halting the reduction of coal use/mining or do we blame the state for not working to diversify their economy? Not to say Washington should just ignore the concerns of the states but the downsides of coal have been known for a while. Coal regions across the world have been devastated when mines closed for decades, this isn't something new and WV knew its day would come. But politicians are really good at shoving problems forward and hoping the next guy has to deal with it and not them. I blame both for sure. The state is highly responsible for not working their way off coal and training its citizens better in other fields. DC is just landing the final blow in what has been a long time coming. I have an issue with a Nation Wide emissions regulation that will put an unfair burden on some states that can meet these standards in required time. In the ideal world, each state needs to work with congress to build their own seperate timelines that create a fair and reasonable solution. I would argue that having an authority tell you how its going to be is highly beneficial. When a state can just come up with its own date, it can be under ideal circumstances where the original goal is not a priority. Let's say it takes $10 to comply with regulations. Well, this other thing costs $3, something else $4, and so, because of budget reasons, the $10 regulations get pushed back because the other $7 of stuff is considered higher priority by that state. By allowing states to determine their own timelines, you essentially get rid of the entire point of requirements to begin with. Being able to control the timeline basically lets you control if it even happens. There are plenty of examples throughout history where this has been the case. It's not much different than big projects at work. Sometimes you need to prioritize and some lower priority issues get pushed back a bit because your boss said x is more important than y.
That's why I said work with congress. The federal government still mandates "Hey this has to happen", your proposals are due by X time, our negotiations will last Y time, plan of action starts at Z time. So there is a still a strict schedule to start and implement changes, just that the state gets a voice in the matter.
Anecdote: As a programmer, my manager can tell me when a project is due, but they can't tell me which lines of code need to be written first because I have the better understanding of the code base. I can say what features can be accomplished and come up with a plan with my manager to prioritize the features most important so that they are implemented first. This way the job gets done and the manager can still be happy in the order which it is completed.
|
Bisutopia19328 Posts
On July 20 2016 23:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 22:56 BisuDagger wrote:On July 20 2016 22:44 Dan HH wrote:On July 20 2016 16:32 acker wrote:
Did they actually talk about jobs today? I missed the stream. They mostly talked about Clinton. "We will put coal miners and oil drillers back to work" is pretty much the only specific job-related thing they said in the hour I watched. For WV it's a major issue. Even if you care for the environment, killing coal puts a whole state out of business. Those workers don't have skills to perform other jobs and coal drives the WV economy. The transition has to be done better then, "We are saving earth, sorry about your jobs and lively hood". There is actually a textbook example of what not to do with the north of England under Thatcher and an awful lot has been written on the subject of what Thatcher should have done. It mostly consists of generous retraining grants and generous tax and other incentives for new industries to relocate to the area.
I'll be sure to read up on this. The WV issue is one I can't pretend to solve myself and it's a common one in several regions/industries of the USA.
|
On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem.
I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin.
|
On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin.
Even if it is, you cant deny that the US is not outright saying they want to kill innocent civilians. The other side is.
|
On July 20 2016 23:58 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. Even if it is, you cant deny that the US is not outright saying they want to kill innocent civilians. The other side is.
I am not sure that argument really holds a lot of sway over the people being bombed. I respect that civilian causalities are unavoidable in armed conflict. But in this conflict, our targets hide among people that don’t have an option to remove themselves from the conflict. Or the power to remove our enemies from around them. Sure, some of them help the terrorist, but the bombs we drop don’t just target the supporters of terrorist.
It’s tragic. Being flippant or dismissive is entirely self serving.
|
On July 21 2016 00:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. Even if it is, you cant deny that the US is not outright saying they want to kill innocent civilians. The other side is. I am not sure that argument really holds a lot of sway over the people being bombed. I respect that civilian causalities are unavoidable in armed conflict. But in this conflict, our targets hide among people that don’t have an option to remove themselves from the conflict. Or the power to remove our enemies from around them. Sure, some of them help the terrorist, but the bombs we drop don’t just target the supporters of terrorist. It’s tragic. Being flippant or dismissive is entirely self serving.
I was responding to this in case you didnt notice:
Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace?
And I think what I said is a valid argument against the above statement.
|
On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin.
I disagree; I consider it to be quite substantial. And it is regarded as so by criminal law systems throughout the world.
Also, why add the hyperbole? it adds nothing to your point, and only detracts from it with nonsense. Your point is better made without the hyperbole.
|
On July 20 2016 23:58 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. Even if it is, you cant deny that the US is not outright saying they want to kill innocent civilians. The other side is.
So if they really wanted to kill civilians it would be fine so long as they didn't "outright say" they wanted to?
|
Its valid but a thin line of reasoning. The result of actions is what matters to the people that have to deal with this stuff. Hiding behind your reasoning is just a very simple excuse to accept or/and not think hard/long about it.
I personally wouldn't care if someone in my Family dies to freedombombs thrown for a "good cause" (is there one?) or some psycho shouting alluhakhbar.
|
On July 21 2016 00:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. I disagree; I consider it to be quite substantial. And it is regarded as so by criminal law systems throughout the world. Also, why add the hyperbole? it adds nothing to your point, and only detracts from it with nonsense. Your point is better made without the hyperbole.
Chomsky discusses this issue in an analogous situation in the spat he had with Sam Harris:
I am sorry you are unwilling to retract your false claim that I “ignore the moral significance of intentions.” Of course I did, as you know. Also, I gave the appropriate answer, which applies accurately to you in the al-Shifa case, the very case in question.
If you had read further before launching your accusations, the usual procedure in work intended to be serious, you would have discovered that I also reviewed the substantial evidence about the very sincere intentions of Japanese fascists while they were devastating China, Hitler in the Sudetenland and Poland, etc. There is at least as much reason to suppose that they were sincere as Clinton was when he bombed al-Shifa. Much more so in fact. Therefore, if you believe what you are saying, you should be justifying their actions as well. I also reviewed other cases, pointing out that professing benign intentions is the norm for those who carry out atrocities and crimes, perhaps sincerely – and surely more plausibly than in this case. And that only the most abject apologists justify the actions on the grounds that perpetrators are adopting the normal stance of criminals.
[. . .]
And of course they knew that there would be major casualties. They are not imbeciles, but rather adopt a stance that is arguably even more immoral than purposeful killing, which at least recognizes the human status of the victims, not just killing ants while walking down the street, who cares?
|
On July 21 2016 00:08 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2016 00:05 Plansix wrote:On July 20 2016 23:58 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. Even if it is, you cant deny that the US is not outright saying they want to kill innocent civilians. The other side is. I am not sure that argument really holds a lot of sway over the people being bombed. I respect that civilian causalities are unavoidable in armed conflict. But in this conflict, our targets hide among people that don’t have an option to remove themselves from the conflict. Or the power to remove our enemies from around them. Sure, some of them help the terrorist, but the bombs we drop don’t just target the supporters of terrorist. It’s tragic. Being flippant or dismissive is entirely self serving. I was responding to this in case you didnt notice: Show nested quote +Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? And I think what I said is a valid argument against the above statement.
That was just me pre mocking the obvious "its about intentions argument" with hyperbole, I thought I made that obvious. It didnt need to be addressed.
On July 21 2016 00:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 23:55 Rebs wrote:On July 20 2016 23:27 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 20 2016 23:10 Rebs wrote:Just to shift the narrative abit because I'd like to see what people have to say. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/Im going to throw in a bit of hyperbole for good measure.. Why doesn't every single American condemn this attack? Where was the drone pilot radicalized? Which websites did he go to? Who was his pastor? Is America truly a religion of peace? Oh right sorry, just war things. Shit happens right ? They were harbouring terrorists anyway. They are critizised for this in europe. But its still a different situation than suicide terrorism attacks. Its about intentions. They thought (or so they claim) they were attacking an enemy they are at war with. They fucked up. Thats not the same thing as somebody explicitly saying he wants to kill as many innocent civilians as possible because they are "the enemy". I think the biggest problem is that the US doesnt see those civilians as people. They are tragic casualties but its not like it was people who died so not too much of a problem. I mean come on man, the mistake and honest intentions argument is really really thin. I disagree; I consider it to be quite substantial. And it is regarded as so by criminal law systems throughout the world. Also, why add the hyperbole? it adds nothing to your point, and only detracts from it with nonsense. Your point is better made without the hyperbole.
Because I am mostly annoyed and needed to vent. a bit. You are right it adds nothing, but it detracts nothing either because I made clear that it was hyperbole and self serving.
To your point about it affecting international law. Well that brings up the point that perhaps international law needs a looking it, It is incredibly disingenuous. After a certain point it becomes difficult to disassociate motivations when people are dying like ants.
At the end of the day, you dont have to deal with the collateral so it seems an easy decision to make. The questions you have to ask + Show Spoiler +and I have been extremely disappointed with Obama on this,
how is this not even news or something to be upset about? Just because "well its war and collateral happens." ? Does that not bother you ? Is it really that easy to be so desentizied to this.
And believe me I've tried but then I think if its finally starting to wear on me, you can see where some of your problems are coming from.
|
1) casualties are impossible to avoid even with drones, the numerous civilian casualties in the history of the program corroborates, at least, a statisical "certainty" that more or fewer people will be killed every X number of strikes
2) any government that knowingly kills civilians is acting immorally
3) therefore the US government is acting immorally
|
Igne -> I'm not entirely sure what your point is supposed to be with the chomsky quote.
your post with a 3 point argument doesn't really work; knowing there will be collateral damage doesn't change the possibility that it's entirely justified and necessary, something which should of course be weighed carefully and thoughtfully.
|
On July 21 2016 00:24 IgnE wrote:
1) casualties are impossible to avoid even with drones, the numerous civilian casualties in the history of the program corroborates, at least, a statisical "certainty" that more or fewer people will be killed every X number of strikes
2) any government that knowingly kills civilians is acting immorally
3) therefore the US government is acting immorally
Congratulations, you have discovered that war is immoral...
I thought that was common knowledge.
|
rebs -> I wasn't talking about international law; but about the national law of all the nations on the earth.
I continue to disagree about it being disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
