Drone Strikes Are Act of Self-Defense...?!

[M14 Shooter]

This is, of course a lie.
You haven't met your burden of proof.
You know it. You hate yourself for it.
But none of that is my problem.

Cut the foreplay; address the points I made, troll.

I did.
You know it;
You're wrong.
You know it.
You hate yourself for it.
Not my problem.

 

[Billo_Really]

I did.
You know it;
You're wrong.
You know it.
You hate yourself for it.
Not my problem.

You did?

This was my claim...

Drone strikes are state-sanctioned terrorism. Because they target innocent civilians.

This was my proof...

The US Has Bombed at Least Eight Wedding Parties Since 2001


These were your responses...

Please show this to be the case for every drone strike.

Good to see you know you can't meet the challenge necessary to prove your point..
You're dismissed.

You clearly choose to take issue with reality.
Sorry, but there's very little I can do about that.

Reality is you made a plenary* statement that you know you cannot support.
And now, when asked to support that plenary statement, you've gone into kindergarten mode - as per the norm.
Reality is not your friend. Seek help.

More correctly: You haven't proven your claim.
But you know that, though you don't have the honesty to admit it.
This is why you need to seek help.

Of course not - you did not use the term "plenary" because until you read my post, you did not know what the word meant.
You did, however, make an unqualified and absolute statement.
That being the case, you need to show that there are NO exceptions to your claim, that EVERY drone strike falls under it.

That you know you cannot do, and so rather than admit your inability to support your claim, you attack me.

That may be how things work for you when discussing issues with your friends while taking turns at the teeter-totter, but in the adult world' you just aren't cutting the mustard.

Again, that's all on you.

I did: You haven't met your burden of proof.
You may not like that, but that's not my problem.

This is, of course a lie.
You haven't met your burden of proof.
You know it. You hate yourself for it.
But none of that is my problem.​

Nowhere in any of that, have you addressed the wedding parties that were blown to bits by drones.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This was my claim...
Drone strikes are state-sanctioned terrorism. Because they target innocent civilians.

Yup.
Your claim is a plenary statement.
To prove your statement, you have to show that innocent civilians were the target of every drone strike.
Get busy.

 

[BlindBoo]

Didn't you say drone strikes?

What follows, gathered by TomDispatch’s Erika Eichelberger, are links to the other seven wedding massacres with brief descriptions of what is known: December 29, 2001,Paktia Province, Afghanistan (more than 100 revelers die in a village in Eastern Afghanistan after an attack by B-52 and B-1B bombers); May 17, 2002, Khost Province, Afghanistan (at least ten Afghans in a wedding celebration die when US helicopters and planes attack a village); July 1, 2002, Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan (at least thirty, and possibly forty, celebrants die when attacked by a B-52 bomber and an AC-130 helicopter); May 20, 2004, Mukaradeeb, Iraq (at least forty-two dead, including “27 members of the [family hosting the wedding ceremony], their wedding guests, and even the band of musicians hired to play at the ceremony” in an attack by American jets); July 6, 2008, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan (at least forty-seven dead, thirty-nine of them women and children, including the bride, among a party escorting that bride to the groom’s house—from a missile attack by jet aircraft); August 2008, Laghman Province, Afghanistan (sixteen killed, including twelve members of the family hosting the wedding, in an attack by “American bombers”); June 8, 2012, Logar Province, Afghanistan (eighteen killed, half of them children, when Taliban fighters take shelter amid a wedding party. This was perhaps the only case among the eight wedding incidents in which the United States offered an apology).]

 

[M14 Shooter]

Didn't you say drone strikes?

What follows, gathered by TomDispatch’s Erika Eichelberger, are links to the other seven wedding massacres with brief descriptions of what is known: December 29, 2001,Paktia Province, Afghanistan (more than 100 revelers die in a village in Eastern Afghanistan after an attack by B-52 and B-1B bombers); May 17, 2002, Khost Province, Afghanistan (at least ten Afghans in a wedding celebration die when US helicopters and planes attack a village); July 1, 2002, Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan (at least thirty, and possibly forty, celebrants die when attacked by a B-52 bomber and an AC-130 helicopter); May 20, 2004, Mukaradeeb, Iraq (at least forty-two dead, including “27 members of the [family hosting the wedding ceremony], their wedding guests, and even the band of musicians hired to play at the ceremony” in an attack by American jets); July 6, 2008, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan (at least forty-seven dead, thirty-nine of them women and children, including the bride, among a party escorting that bride to the groom’s house—from a missile attack by jet aircraft); August 2008, Laghman Province, Afghanistan (sixteen killed, including twelve members of the family hosting the wedding, in an attack by “American bombers”); June 8, 2012, Logar Province, Afghanistan (eighteen killed, half of them children, when Taliban fighters take shelter amid a wedding party. This was perhaps the only case among the eight wedding incidents in which the United States offered an apology).]

AC-130 helicopter

I read all that. Disproves his claim. He doesn't realize it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Didn't you say drone strikes?

What follows, gathered by TomDispatch’s Erika Eichelberger, are links to the other seven wedding massacres with brief descriptions of what is known: December 29, 2001,Paktia Province, Afghanistan (more than 100 revelers die in a village in Eastern Afghanistan after an attack by B-52 and B-1B bombers); May 17, 2002, Khost Province, Afghanistan (at least ten Afghans in a wedding celebration die when US helicopters and planes attack a village); July 1, 2002, Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan (at least thirty, and possibly forty, celebrants die when attacked by a B-52 bomber and an AC-130 helicopter); May 20, 2004, Mukaradeeb, Iraq (at least forty-two dead, including “27 members of the [family hosting the wedding ceremony], their wedding guests, and even the band of musicians hired to play at the ceremony” in an attack by American jets); July 6, 2008, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan (at least forty-seven dead, thirty-nine of them women and children, including the bride, among a party escorting that bride to the groom’s house—from a missile attack by jet aircraft); August 2008, Laghman Province, Afghanistan (sixteen killed, including twelve members of the family hosting the wedding, in an attack by “American bombers”); June 8, 2012, Logar Province, Afghanistan (eighteen killed, half of them children, when Taliban fighters take shelter amid a wedding party. This was perhaps the only case among the eight wedding incidents in which the United States offered an apology).]

AC-130 helicopter

I read all that. Disproves his claim. He doesn't realize it.

He posted it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Yup.
Your claim is a plenary statement.
To prove your statement, you have to show that innocent civilians were the target of every drone strike.
Get busy.

I explained my reasons and provided my proof; you're just here to troll and talk shit. Shove that bullshit strawman crap up your ass!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yup.
Your claim is a plenary statement.
To prove your statement, you have to show that innocent civilians were the target of every drone strike.
Get busy.

I explained my reasons and provided my proof

Your "proof" provides an example of a drone strike where innocent civilians were -not- targeted,
That is, your "poof" disproves your claim.


You may now continue to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being.

 

[Billo_Really]

Didn't you say drone strikes?

What follows, gathered by TomDispatch’s Erika Eichelberger, are links to the other seven wedding massacres with brief descriptions of what is known: December 29, 2001,Paktia Province, Afghanistan (more than 100 revelers die in a village in Eastern Afghanistan after an attack by B-52 and B-1B bombers); May 17, 2002, Khost Province, Afghanistan (at least ten Afghans in a wedding celebration die when US helicopters and planes attack a village); July 1, 2002, Oruzgan Province, Afghanistan (at least thirty, and possibly forty, celebrants die when attacked by a B-52 bomber and an AC-130 helicopter); May 20, 2004, Mukaradeeb, Iraq (at least forty-two dead, including “27 members of the [family hosting the wedding ceremony], their wedding guests, and even the band of musicians hired to play at the ceremony” in an attack by American jets); July 6, 2008, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan (at least forty-seven dead, thirty-nine of them women and children, including the bride, among a party escorting that bride to the groom’s house—from a missile attack by jet aircraft); August 2008, Laghman Province, Afghanistan (sixteen killed, including twelve members of the family hosting the wedding, in an attack by “American bombers”); June 8, 2012, Logar Province, Afghanistan (eighteen killed, half of them children, when Taliban fighters take shelter amid a wedding party. This was perhaps the only case among the eight wedding incidents in which the United States offered an apology).]

Do you think taking out wedding party's with B-52's and Cobra gunships makes it alright? You think the people are not just as terrified? What's the difference if a missile comes from a drone or an F-16, it's still, "State-sanctioned, American terrorism".

A ‘See-No-Evil’ Drone War

In examining articles by The New York Times and Washington Post in the immediate aftermath of U.S. drone strikes between 2009 and 2014, Bachman concluded:

“Both papers have substantially underrepresented the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, failed to correct the public record when evidence emerged that their reporting was wrong and ignored the importance of international law.”

a sample of 81 Times articles and 26 Post articles published within two days of particular drone strikes between 2009 and 2014.

In the drone attacks reported on by The Times, TBIJ found civilians killed in 26 of the 81 attacks. The Times, though, reported civilians killed in only two of those attacks

Looking at The Post’s coverage of drone attacks, TBIJ reported civilians killed in seven of the 26 attacks, while The Post reported civilians killed in only one attack.

In the 33 strikes that produced civilian casualties, TBIJ found that between 180 and 302 civilians were killed — yet Times and Post articles reported on the deaths of only nine civilians in the three stories in which they noted that there were civilian casualties.
​

Yeah, that's not terrorism. We're bringing them democracy by reducing their population.

Fuck the war on terror! And fuck anyone who supports this bullshit.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your "proof" provides an example of a drone strike where innocent civilians were -not- targeted,
That is, your "poof" disproves your claim.


You may now continue to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being.

If they weren't targeted, then how did they fucking die?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your "proof" provides an example of a drone strike where innocent civilians were -not- targeted,
That is, your "poof" disproves your claim.

You may now continue to self-sodomize your credibility as a sentient being.

If they weren't targeted, then how did they fucking die?

Wow....
I didn't really think there was anyone so stupid that they had to ask this.
Do you tie strings to your fingers so you remember to breathe?

The OBVIOUS answer:
They were in the area of someone that was targeted.

Your claim: Disproven. By you..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh look! Dozens of instances where a drone strike did not target an innocent person

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

 

[Billo_Really]

Wow....
I didn't really think there was anyone so stupid that they had to ask this.
Do you tie strings to your fingers so you remember to breathe?

The OBVIOUS answer:
They were in the area of someone that was targeted.

Your claim: Disproven. By you..

Where's your proof of that?

According to US troops in Iraq, if the person lives, they are classified as collateral damage; if they do not survive, they are re-classified as an insurgent.

Spare me your bullshit military propaganda.

 

[Billo_Really]

Oh look! Dozens of instances where a drone strike did not target an innocent person

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground

So what are you saying? That 1,106 people were terrorists?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wow....
I didn't really think there was anyone so stupid that they had to ask this.
Do you tie strings to your fingers so you remember to breathe?

The OBVIOUS answer:
They were in the area of someone that was targeted.

Your claim: Disproven. By you..

Where's your proof of that?

Your source.
You read your source, right?
It talked about how innocent people were killed because they were in the same place as the Taliban that was targeted by the drone strike.

i applaud your ability and willingness to continually embarrass yourself, at the top of your lungs.
Keep up the good work.

 

[Billo_Really]

For all you pricks who are defending this shit, let me ask you this question...

"Would you live there?"
​

I guarantee, you'd have a change in tune if Chinese or Russian drones were flying around your neighborhood, taking pot shots at you as you go to the store.

 

[M14 Shooter]

For all you pricks who are defending this shit, let me ask you this question...

"Would you live there?"
​

I guarantee, you'd have a change in tune if Chinese or Russian drones were flying around your neighborhood, taking pot shots at you as you go to the store.

Aww....
Puddy is all upset because he proved himself wrong.
No one to blame for that but you.

 

[Billo_Really]

Your source.
You read your source, right?
It talked about how innocent people were killed because they were in the same place as the Taliban that was targeted by the drone strike.

i applaud your ability and willingness to continually embarrass yourself, at the top of your lungs.
Keep up the good work.

Targets must be of military necessity.

There is nothing military necessary in taking about a whole wedding party to get one or two men. You act like we have a right to go to their country and bomb the shit out of them.

 

[Billo_Really]

Aww....
Puddy is all upset because he proved himself wrong.
No one to blame for that but you.

Now you're talking like a 10th grader.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your source.
You read your source, right?
It talked about how innocent people were killed because they were in the same place as the Taliban that was targeted by the drone strike.
i applaud your ability and willingness to continually embarrass yourself, at the top of your lungs.
Keep up the good work.

Targets must be of military necessity.
There is nothing military necessary in taking about a whole wedding party to get one or two men. You act like we have a right to go to their country and bomb the shit out of them.

Still not done embarrassing yourself, eh?