Topic: FAO: Squeegee
Metæ started this discussion 10 years ago #50,604
You mentioned in this thread that you were worried Trump would start some sort of targeted assassination program if he became president.
Why are you not concerned with Obama's drone warfare program which has killed a lot of innocent people?
Thanks.
Why are you not concerned with Obama's drone warfare program which has killed a lot of innocent people?
Thanks.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #656,545
Trump is worse than the others. This meme of them all being equally bad is too narrow. Thanks.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 15 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #656,546
@OP
> Why are you not concerned with Obama's drone warfare program which has killed a lot of innocent people?
you can not make an omelot without breaking a few eggs..
> Why are you not concerned with Obama's drone warfare program which has killed a lot of innocent people?
you can not make an omelot without breaking a few eggs..
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #656,549
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #656,559
because obama doesn't say, "you can't just take out the terrorist target, you have to take out their families. you have to ''take out their family."
that's a mother fucking warcrime to specifically and purposefully kill the family of a terrorist. mom. dad. son. daughter. wife. family. you have to take them out.
civilians killed by drones have always at least been called casualties. there is a huge difference between casualties and targeted children.
"we have to take out their family." that's a direct quote, and his intention should become president. to murder the children of terrorists to teach them a lesson... just think about that and ask yourself why that doesn't bother you more than unintended casualties.
that's a mother fucking warcrime to specifically and purposefully kill the family of a terrorist. mom. dad. son. daughter. wife. family. you have to take them out.
civilians killed by drones have always at least been called casualties. there is a huge difference between casualties and targeted children.
"we have to take out their family." that's a direct quote, and his intention should become president. to murder the children of terrorists to teach them a lesson... just think about that and ask yourself why that doesn't bother you more than unintended casualties.
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #656,562
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #656,565
@656,559 (squeegee)
> to murder the children of terrorists to teach them a lesson...
I'm gonna have to nitpick on that point. I think it has more to do with preventing them from taking up the cause than it does with teaching their terrorist relative and/or them a lesson.
> to murder the children of terrorists to teach them a lesson...
I'm gonna have to nitpick on that point. I think it has more to do with preventing them from taking up the cause than it does with teaching their terrorist relative and/or them a lesson.
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 29 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,577
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
does it matter though? he's talking about killing children and shit. should we really entertain the idea that killing children because they might take up arms in the future? don't we condemn the terrorists for killing innocents in rampage shootings and everything else? killing the innocent, promoting the killing of children and innocents is what they do and what we suposedly abhor. we're supposed to be good, not fucking crazy evil that wants to murder children and women becuase we're... scared of them.
does it matter though? he's talking about killing children and shit. should we really entertain the idea that killing children because they might take up arms in the future? don't we condemn the terrorists for killing innocents in rampage shootings and everything else? killing the innocent, promoting the killing of children and innocents is what they do and what we suposedly abhor. we're supposed to be good, not fucking crazy evil that wants to murder children and women becuase we're... scared of them.
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,579
@previous (squeegee)Trump of course AFTER multiple times of swing that shit - with no fucking clue about our constitution - Has officially changed his mind. First open change of mind since he started this current campaign -
Bottom line is Trump is fucking Genius at getting free TV air time and as a result will end up Nominee - Which pleases me greatly.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,582
@656,577 (squeegee)
From a strictly moral standpoint, no, but from a political standpoint it does matter. If a politician was just blatantly condoning the slaughter of random innocents, people would be outraged, but if they can say they're only targeting terrorists and people who have familial ties to terrorists, it's palatable enough for the general public to look the other way when "innocent" people who might be predisposed towards extremism get targeted.
From a strictly moral standpoint, no, but from a political standpoint it does matter. If a politician was just blatantly condoning the slaughter of random innocents, people would be outraged, but if they can say they're only targeting terrorists and people who have familial ties to terrorists, it's palatable enough for the general public to look the other way when "innocent" people who might be predisposed towards extremism get targeted.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,586
@previous (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Me thinks you have made an error. Trump in his own words has said this multiple ways multiple times.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-members/
If you want to see his lips move with that speech back to say Dec 2 2015?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/trump-kill-isil-families-216343
Me thinks you have made an error. Trump in his own words has said this multiple ways multiple times.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/15/3732671/trump-isis-kill-family-members/
Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump defended his proposal to kill the family members of ISIS terrorists on Tuesday, saying the policy would be warranted because family members “know what is going on” with their relatives.
“We have to be much tougher and much stronger than we’ve been,” Trump said at the fifth Republican debate hosted by CNN in Las Vegas. The answer came in response to a question from Josh Jacob, a student at Georgia Tech, who asked, “How would intentionally killing innocent civilians set us apart from ISIS?”
“You look at the attack in California the other day — numerous people, including the mother that knew what was going on,” Trump responded. “They saw a pipe bomb sitting all over the floor. They saw ammunition all over the place. They knew exactly what was going on.”
“I would be very, very firm with families,” he added. “Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”
“We have to be much tougher and much stronger than we’ve been,” Trump said at the fifth Republican debate hosted by CNN in Las Vegas. The answer came in response to a question from Josh Jacob, a student at Georgia Tech, who asked, “How would intentionally killing innocent civilians set us apart from ISIS?”
“You look at the attack in California the other day — numerous people, including the mother that knew what was going on,” Trump responded. “They saw a pipe bomb sitting all over the floor. They saw ammunition all over the place. They knew exactly what was going on.”
“I would be very, very firm with families,” he added. “Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”
If you want to see his lips move with that speech back to say Dec 2 2015?
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/trump-kill-isil-families-216343
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,593
@656,582 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
so, then as long as we're at war with them then, politically, it's fine for ISIL to send terrorists here to kill the wives and children of soldiers? they do that and we call it terrorism and denounce it and wage ideological wars over it. but we kill the children and wives of their soldiers and that's politically cool? no dude, no it's not.
it's calling for the murder of children. i mean, where do we stop? curb stomp 1 year old babies because their dad fought in syria? i mean c'mon. kill their families. i can't believe there's not more outrage over a presidential candidate promoting out right warcrimes. honestly, if we start doing that then we lose any kind of "moral authority" we might have since we, supposedly, engage in war justly. we're not supposed to be the villains, we're told we're the good guys. and that just doesn't flesh with killing women and children because they might one day decide to go to war with us. we do that and then the whole world will have a justifiable reason to cut ties with us and wage war against us.
i mean seriously, can you imagine our troops going around as assassination squads, lining up children and blowing their brains out in the streets? who the fuck are we? isn't that exactly what the nazis did? go around and murder people that might be a threat somehow? killing children and women and the elderly just so they lose any ability to stand up to aggression? seriously? who the fuck are we now?
so, then as long as we're at war with them then, politically, it's fine for ISIL to send terrorists here to kill the wives and children of soldiers? they do that and we call it terrorism and denounce it and wage ideological wars over it. but we kill the children and wives of their soldiers and that's politically cool? no dude, no it's not.
it's calling for the murder of children. i mean, where do we stop? curb stomp 1 year old babies because their dad fought in syria? i mean c'mon. kill their families. i can't believe there's not more outrage over a presidential candidate promoting out right warcrimes. honestly, if we start doing that then we lose any kind of "moral authority" we might have since we, supposedly, engage in war justly. we're not supposed to be the villains, we're told we're the good guys. and that just doesn't flesh with killing women and children because they might one day decide to go to war with us. we do that and then the whole world will have a justifiable reason to cut ties with us and wage war against us.
i mean seriously, can you imagine our troops going around as assassination squads, lining up children and blowing their brains out in the streets? who the fuck are we? isn't that exactly what the nazis did? go around and murder people that might be a threat somehow? killing children and women and the elderly just so they lose any ability to stand up to aggression? seriously? who the fuck are we now?
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,594
Metæ (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,597
But does that change the reality of sloppy drone strikes taking out families and bystanders? It's like when Israel carpet bombs Gaza "oh shit our bad lol but they shouldn't have been near terrorists".
> honestly, if we start doing that then we lose any kind of "moral authority" we might have since we, supposedly, engage in war justly
We haven't fought a just war since 1812.
> honestly, if we start doing that then we lose any kind of "moral authority" we might have since we, supposedly, engage in war justly
We haven't fought a just war since 1812.
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,599
@previous (Metæ)
so you are THE source for whether a war is just..
guess what...I do not believe in you..
so you are THE source for whether a war is just..
guess what...I do not believe in you..
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 29 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,600
@656,597 (Metæ)
Yeah. It does change it. The strikes are not specifically going after innocents.
If you genuinely care about these deaths, then you should dislike Trump much more than Obama. Trump's policy would result in even more death. Much more death.
Yeah. It does change it. The strikes are not specifically going after innocents.
If you genuinely care about these deaths, then you should dislike Trump much more than Obama. Trump's policy would result in even more death. Much more death.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 13 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,601
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,608
@656,597 (Metæ)wait. are you serious? you don't think WW2 was a just war on the part of the allies? lol, oh okay. keep reaching, trump is a maniac and you know it. you're having to do some extreme reaching to justify his beliefs, bud. i hope you recognize it in yourself before the election, because you sir have drunk some kool-aid. wake. the fuck up.
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,613
Anonymous C double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,616
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,620
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,622
@previous (Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo)
I got out shortly before 'Desert Storm'..
when your enlistment ends...unless you re-enlist you are out of the armed forces..
if you were not so gay maybe you would have done your part..
I got out shortly before 'Desert Storm'..
when your enlistment ends...unless you re-enlist you are out of the armed forces..
if you were not so gay maybe you would have done your part..
squeegee replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,626
@656,616 (C)
oh, i've spoken to her about it. she voted for bush, twice, but she cried the other night over the idea that trump might win the republican nomination. she fucking hates the man. she said when he talked about the size of his dick during the presidential debate that she turned it off and is now questioning her entire belief system, but, she can't vote for hillary, and she can't vote for trump. it's actually gotten her pretty upset. she's just kind of beside herself over the whole thing. and that's sad, as a life long republican who worked on 2 campaigns and has always believed in the party it's been pretty hard on her to see the whole thing become so obscene and in her words "unconscionable."
oh, i've spoken to her about it. she voted for bush, twice, but she cried the other night over the idea that trump might win the republican nomination. she fucking hates the man. she said when he talked about the size of his dick during the presidential debate that she turned it off and is now questioning her entire belief system, but, she can't vote for hillary, and she can't vote for trump. it's actually gotten her pretty upset. she's just kind of beside herself over the whole thing. and that's sad, as a life long republican who worked on 2 campaigns and has always believed in the party it's been pretty hard on her to see the whole thing become so obscene and in her words "unconscionable."
Anonymous C replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,627
@previous (squeegee)
> oh, i've spoken to her about it. she voted for bush, twice, but she cried the other night over the idea that trump might win the republican nomination.
with all due respect...and I do not want to say this...but your mom is an idiot..
> oh, i've spoken to her about it. she voted for bush, twice, but she cried the other night over the idea that trump might win the republican nomination.
with all due respect...and I do not want to say this...but your mom is an idiot..
Metæ (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 18 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,650
@656,600 (B)
> The strikes are not specifically going after innocents
Yes, but it's like those nets they used to use for tuna fishing that caught dolphins: fisherman didn't want to catch dolphins but knew that the nets would catch dolphins.
The US killed 1,147 people to 41 targets. I know President Obama sincerely did not want to kill any bystanders but for each target 28 others were killed, or about 96% of persons killed by US drone strikes were not targets. I guess you could argue about whether these 41 men wouild have killed more than 1,147 people doing terrorism but every one of those 1,147 was someone's daughter, son, spouse, friend, parent, or co-worker. If even a small fraction of the relatives of these people become radicalized, it will create even more terrorists and the whole thing will be for naught (or worse than naught).
To the parent or child or spouse of one of the 1,147, does it matter if America wanted their loved one dead or not?
> The strikes are not specifically going after innocents
Yes, but it's like those nets they used to use for tuna fishing that caught dolphins: fisherman didn't want to catch dolphins but knew that the nets would catch dolphins.
The US killed 1,147 people to 41 targets. I know President Obama sincerely did not want to kill any bystanders but for each target 28 others were killed, or about 96% of persons killed by US drone strikes were not targets. I guess you could argue about whether these 41 men wouild have killed more than 1,147 people doing terrorism but every one of those 1,147 was someone's daughter, son, spouse, friend, parent, or co-worker. If even a small fraction of the relatives of these people become radicalized, it will create even more terrorists and the whole thing will be for naught (or worse than naught).
To the parent or child or spouse of one of the 1,147, does it matter if America wanted their loved one dead or not?
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,660
@656,593 (squeegee)
It's not okay. But as humans we are prone to a double-standard of thinking where we blind ourselves to our own monsters when we're fighting someone else's. Anyway, you have to keep in mind that in this era of social justice feelings always outweigh logic. At least in public discourse. How else do you think masses of Americans can still deny the existence of global warming?
It's not okay. But as humans we are prone to a double-standard of thinking where we blind ourselves to our own monsters when we're fighting someone else's. Anyway, you have to keep in mind that in this era of social justice feelings always outweigh logic. At least in public discourse. How else do you think masses of Americans can still deny the existence of global warming?
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo replied with this 10 years ago, 37 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,661
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,674
@656,650 (Metæ)
What you've done in this post is reiterate that innocents dying is bad. Yes, dude, I agree. I think we're all on the same page. Nobody is trying to excuse the Obama administration for those deaths.
Here's the big problem: Trump wants to actively target family and friends. Therefore, he would make this problem even worse. By your own standards, Trump should be far worse than Obama. So you seeming to downplay his extremist tendencies comes across as confusing.
What you've done in this post is reiterate that innocents dying is bad. Yes, dude, I agree. I think we're all on the same page. Nobody is trying to excuse the Obama administration for those deaths.
Here's the big problem: Trump wants to actively target family and friends. Therefore, he would make this problem even worse. By your own standards, Trump should be far worse than Obama. So you seeming to downplay his extremist tendencies comes across as confusing.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Metæ (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,699
@previous (B)
Its confusing because you're assuming that I agree with everything or even a majority of things Trump says. I think Trump's "we'll go after their families" policy is abhorrent as does anyone who is not a complete sociopath. Just like me supporting Ron Paul doesn't mean I agree with his views on religion or abortion. Support itself is, for me, more of a spectrum rather than a black/white duality. If I had to quantify it (say as a reference point I 100% support Ron Paul and 0% support Karl Marx) my support for Trump would be about 25%. My approval for Trump is high but only relative to Cruz and Rubio. It's like saying Chlamydia is the best STD. It doesn't mean I think it's a wonderful thing but it means I think it's less bad than AIDS or Hepatitis C.
The heart of this topic is: I just felt Squeegee had a double standard where Obama's drone program is fine but Trump's would be beyond the pale. I don't think there should be any drone program and I think we should be out of the middle east.
It brought up something I remember well: in the second adminstration of George W. Bush there was a lot of anti-war sentiment on the left (as there should be). Fierce opposition to stuff like waterboarding, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and so on. After Obama was elected, many of the same policies continued but the anti-war sentiment just collapsed because now it was a Democrat in office. Had John McCain won in 2008, I'm absolutely sure Senator Obama and the left would be railing against the Patriot Act and drone strikes instead of signing off on them.
Its confusing because you're assuming that I agree with everything or even a majority of things Trump says. I think Trump's "we'll go after their families" policy is abhorrent as does anyone who is not a complete sociopath. Just like me supporting Ron Paul doesn't mean I agree with his views on religion or abortion. Support itself is, for me, more of a spectrum rather than a black/white duality. If I had to quantify it (say as a reference point I 100% support Ron Paul and 0% support Karl Marx) my support for Trump would be about 25%. My approval for Trump is high but only relative to Cruz and Rubio. It's like saying Chlamydia is the best STD. It doesn't mean I think it's a wonderful thing but it means I think it's less bad than AIDS or Hepatitis C.
The heart of this topic is: I just felt Squeegee had a double standard where Obama's drone program is fine but Trump's would be beyond the pale. I don't think there should be any drone program and I think we should be out of the middle east.
It brought up something I remember well: in the second adminstration of George W. Bush there was a lot of anti-war sentiment on the left (as there should be). Fierce opposition to stuff like waterboarding, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and so on. After Obama was elected, many of the same policies continued but the anti-war sentiment just collapsed because now it was a Democrat in office. Had John McCain won in 2008, I'm absolutely sure Senator Obama and the left would be railing against the Patriot Act and drone strikes instead of signing off on them.
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,701
@previous (Metæ)
> I think we should be out of the middle east.
Huston we have a problem. Its not that I disagree with you in principle. We as in USA does a horrid job when we are in Middle East or just about anywhere we go. That said:
Someone has to stop the Al Qaeda's/ISIS because once they end up with a State Hood (Al Qaeda did not want to be a state) Once they have solid territory and wallets filled with money - You damn well no the plan is to be HERE in USA in a very nasty way. When they end up with Billions in wallets they can easily by Nuke waste fuel - Nuke hospital waste products etc and then pack them up and deposit them HERE.
> I think we should be out of the middle east.
Huston we have a problem. Its not that I disagree with you in principle. We as in USA does a horrid job when we are in Middle East or just about anywhere we go. That said:
Someone has to stop the Al Qaeda's/ISIS because once they end up with a State Hood (Al Qaeda did not want to be a state) Once they have solid territory and wallets filled with money - You damn well no the plan is to be HERE in USA in a very nasty way. When they end up with Billions in wallets they can easily by Nuke waste fuel - Nuke hospital waste products etc and then pack them up and deposit them HERE.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 27 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,704
@656,699 (Metæ)
I was not assuming that, rather I was going off of your earlier expressed sentiment of Trump being more or less the same as the other mainstream politicians. It was my impression you had a similar sentiment in regards to their strategies against terrorists.
If you're purely commenting upon a perceived hypocrisy against squeegee, then okay. If that's the case, then I have lost interest in the conversation and shall be pulling out. Squeegee might be a valued partner, but I'm not going to go to war for him.
I was not assuming that, rather I was going off of your earlier expressed sentiment of Trump being more or less the same as the other mainstream politicians. It was my impression you had a similar sentiment in regards to their strategies against terrorists.
If you're purely commenting upon a perceived hypocrisy against squeegee, then okay. If that's the case, then I have lost interest in the conversation and shall be pulling out. Squeegee might be a valued partner, but I'm not going to go to war for him.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Metæ (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 16 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #656,975
@previous (B)
> earlier expressed sentiment of Trump being more or less the same as the other mainstream politicians
I think in action he will be. Trump doesn't have principles or any sort of ideology as we know it. Trump could just as easily be Democrat. When Trump says stuff like "we'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" and "we'll go after their families" these are just opening offers. They're unreasonable by design and will be bargained down and walked back. You can't take Trump literally.
Why I like Trump is because he has the potential to slaughter several Republican sacred cows: 1) foreign interventionism, 2) Jesus and fetuses, and 3) George W. Bush
All politicians lie. Is it better to have someone who says pretty words (Obama) and does ugly things? Interesting project: look up some of Obama's speeches from 2007 and compare it with the reality of the Obama administration.
> earlier expressed sentiment of Trump being more or less the same as the other mainstream politicians
I think in action he will be. Trump doesn't have principles or any sort of ideology as we know it. Trump could just as easily be Democrat. When Trump says stuff like "we'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" and "we'll go after their families" these are just opening offers. They're unreasonable by design and will be bargained down and walked back. You can't take Trump literally.
Why I like Trump is because he has the potential to slaughter several Republican sacred cows: 1) foreign interventionism, 2) Jesus and fetuses, and 3) George W. Bush
All politicians lie. Is it better to have someone who says pretty words (Obama) and does ugly things? Interesting project: look up some of Obama's speeches from 2007 and compare it with the reality of the Obama administration.
(Edited 15 minutes later.)