America tries to bomb ISIS kills children instead

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you saying we can safely assume the children are combatants? Without evidence that they are combatants?

I'm saying we can't assume them to be noncombatants. Given the high male:female ratio I rather suspect at least some of those "children" were combatants.

I'm confused as to the purpose of lying. Iran is on board, Saudi Arabia is on board. They want the US involved. It'd seem quite counteractive to release such lies in order to discredit the US, which would only help to give ISIS a push closer towards their own borders.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are you saying we can safely assume the children are combatants? Without evidence that they are combatants?

I'm saying we can't assume them to be noncombatants. Given the high male:female ratio I rather suspect at least some of those "children" were combatants.

The ratio doesn't really matter. I'm sure that if even one of these people were combatants, you'd say it was justified to wipe them all out.

 

[Unbeatable]

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4517.htm

No wonder there are more and more terrorists. Who wouldn't become one?

A dead child.

The worlds most incompetent and careless military does it yet again and kills more children

Our country's foreign policy is bad and all, and our military's over-funded and over-extended, but come on, most incompetent/careless in the world? Maybe "the developed world" or "the first world" might fit, but the entire world? Really? What purpose is really served by that level of hyperbole?

Today's baby is tomorrow's terrorist.

Somehow I misread that as "tomorrow's breakfast".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm saying we can't assume them to be noncombatants. Given the high male:female ratio I rather suspect at least some of those "children" were combatants.

That's not good enough.

Of course we can't prove things one way or the other.

I'm just saying I find the numbers very suspicious. When you see such a ratio it normally means the bombs were on target.

 

[thief of fire]

So I could only assume you were saying that is should not be pointed out that the US was killing children. What else could it mean?

I thought he was pointing out that when you say "he worlds most incompetent and careless military does it yet again and kills more children" you're missing the target.
I thought he was saying that the military is not the one that decides to invade a country or bomb a target without political direction. So when you say that calling it political misses the point, you're missing the point high, wide and handsome.
Thus, the subject of your ire should not be a careless military, but the people that hold the reins. And yes, it's political.

ISIS aren't saying the American government is responsible. ISIS are saying the pussy American taxpayers are responsible. And so they are killing ordinary Americans.
The people that hold the reins are not the government, but the taxpayers who passively accept what their government does and never investigate who is really getting killed.

 

[thief of fire]

The most that can be accomplished by crying over dead children is the military maybe spurred to develop more accurate weapons..

I think a lot of the world is hoping that people around the world will rise up and tell Americans that they aren't adult enough to have these weapons/ There don't use them responsibly.
But you want America to have even more and newer weapons?

It's not about the weapons being not accurate enough. It's about the incompetent people running the show and the population who don't care but do care about the Kardashians

 

[GenesisNemesis]

flower power utopia.

That's what's called a straw-man. Congratulations.

 

[Perspicuo]

flower power utopia.

That's what's called a straw-man. Congratulations.

That's what I call zero argument. Congrats for using your neurons 32 seconds. I hope you're not exhausted.

 

[Bronzeage]

The most that can be accomplished by crying over dead children is the military maybe spurred to develop more accurate weapons..

I think a lot of the world is hoping that people around the world will rise up and tell Americans that they aren't adult enough to have these weapons/ There don't use them responsibly.
But you want America to have even more and newer weapons?

It's not about the weapons being not accurate enough. It's about the incompetent people running the show and the population who don't care but do care about the Kardashians

I never said I wanted Americans to have more and newer weapons. I said that is the result when people cry about the wrong people getting killed. Instead of finding ways to avoid killing, the incentive is to find ways to more accurately kill people.

There's no reason you can't be the first to rise up and tell us how to do it.

Let's give it a try. You are now in charge of the American government and have been granted great powers in law, and better yet, great powers of persuasion. You've decided not to use the military option. What is your first move?

 

[Nexus]

That's what's called a straw-man. Congratulations.

That's what I call zero argument. Congrats for using your neurons 32 seconds. I hope you're not exhausted.

You also used a false dilemma fallacy. Western civilization isn't going to end due to ISIS whether we bomb them or not despite you assertions we're all doomed unless they're stopped. If America actually wanted to stop ISIS they would freeze their banks assets, apply sanctions and they would stop supplying them with arms. ISIS is just another boogeyman for the military industrial complex to enrich itself.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's what I call zero argument. Congrats for using your neurons 32 seconds. I hope you're not exhausted.

You also used a false dilemma fallacy. Western civilization isn't going to end due to ISIS whether we bomb them or not despite you assertions we're all doomed unless they're stopped. If America actually wanted to stop ISIS they would freeze their banks assets, apply sanctions and they would stop supplying them with arms. ISIS is just another boogeyman for the military industrial complex to enrich itself.

To freeze bank accounts you have to identify them and they have to be in a place you can get to them.

And we aren't arming them. We did make the mistake of arming others who lost their weapons to ISIS, though.

 

[thief of fire]

I think a lot of the world is hoping that people around the world will rise up and tell Americans that they aren't adult enough to have these weapons/ There don't use them responsibly.
But you want America to have even more and newer weapons?

It's not about the weapons being not accurate enough. It's about the incompetent people running the show and the population who don't care but do care about the Kardashians

I never said I wanted Americans to have more and newer weapons. I said that is the result when people cry about the wrong people getting killed. Instead of finding ways to avoid killing, the incentive is to find ways to more accurately kill people.

There's no reason you can't be the first to rise up and tell us how to do it.

Let's give it a try. You are now in charge of the American government and have been granted great powers in law, and better yet, great powers of persuasion. You've decided not to use the military option. What is your first move?

If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.
William Blum​

 

[thief of fire]

To freeze bank accounts you have to identify them and they have to be in a place you can get to them.
And we aren't arming them. We did make the mistake of arming others who lost their weapons to ISIS, though.

You just made this up. Fact is, America has no idea who they gave weapons to. They just gave them to anyone they thought might help them topple Assaad. The people doing this, the Americans, are complete fucking idiots. Though, they will always find plenty of useful idiots in America to support them through thick and thin.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I never said I wanted Americans to have more and newer weapons. I said that is the result when people cry about the wrong people getting killed. Instead of finding ways to avoid killing, the incentive is to find ways to more accurately kill people.

There's no reason you can't be the first to rise up and tell us how to do it.

Let's give it a try. You are now in charge of the American government and have been granted great powers in law, and better yet, great powers of persuasion. You've decided not to use the military option. What is your first move?

If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now -- oddly enough -- a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.
William Blum​

Yeah, it would stop attacks against the US for now. They would focus on more immediate threats to their plans for world domination. The war would resume down the road--but with nukes.

 

[Perspicuo]

That's what I call zero argument. Congrats for using your neurons 32 seconds. I hope you're not exhausted.

You also used a false dilemma fallacy. Western civilization isn't going to end due to ISIS whether we bomb them or not despite you assertions we're all doomed unless they're stopped. If America actually wanted to stop ISIS they would freeze their banks assets, apply sanctions and they would stop supplying them with arms. ISIS is just another boogeyman for the military industrial complex to enrich itself.

No one is capable of destroying civilization by themselves in one fell swoop. By that style of decision making, any sort of indolent passivity can be justified.

And about your "ISIS is just another boogeyman for the military industrial complex to enrich itself", you show nothing other than god-like omniscience, showing knowledge way beyond all evidence, or otherwise, conspiracy theorist paranoia, especially if one takes into consideration your assertion that the US government is purposefully allowing ISIL to acquire funds from within its jurisdiction. An inside job, how original. Well now, after having said that, I guess we should all wait for the black helicopters to come after us and this incriminating inside knowledge you have shared with us.

 

[Keith&Co.]

ISIS aren't saying the American government is responsible.

Is ISIS posting in this thread, now?
The question was your blaming the military and claiming that politics had nothing to do with it. Now you're dodging any sort of responsibility for your posts by sorta-quoting ISIS. 'Kay.

ISIS are saying the pussy American taxpayers are responsible. And so they are killing ordinary Americans.

Which sounds to me like they're identifying the political power in the US. So it's political. It's very political.

The people that hold the reins are not the government, but the taxpayers who passively accept what their government does and never investigate who is really getting killed.

Either way, it's not the military deciding on its own to kill people. And it's political.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of 330 billion dollars is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

That's odd math there, Bill.
You don't seem to have any real numbers for how many victims will require restitution, or how much restitution there would be, just a hand-wave that the pile of money would be huge, therefore sufficient. That there's a big ol' argument from arrogant ignorance, i'd say.

Of course, part of the military budget is going towards military and civilian salaries that are then taxed. And business earnings are taxed. General Dynamics won't keep 90% of its employees on staff in order to do nothing. .

So if you shut down 90% of the military, what sort of economic condition will the country be in, with all that unemployment? I suppose you could use the military budget to create new jobs that aren't military-based. Except... You've earmarked all those funds for reparations. Are you going to offer reparations to the new homeless?

Mothballing our tanks and ships will cost some money, too, unless we're going to sell them to whoever has money. But that'll probably turn around to bite us in the ass...

 

[Nexus]

And about your "ISIS is just another boogeyman for the military industrial complex to enrich itself", you show nothing other than god-like omniscience, showing knowledge way beyond all evidence, or otherwise, conspiracy theorist paranoia, especially if one takes into consideration your assertion that the US government is purposefully allowing ISIL to acquire funds from within its jurisdiction. An inside job, how original. Well now, after having said that, I guess we should all wait for the black helicopters to come after us and this incriminating inside knowledge you have shared with us.

I see you need to cry conspiracy theory! to cover for your naivete. The fact is the entire world is tied to a financial system that the US has to the power to impose sanctions and freeze assets. IS isn't trading millions of barrels of oil for gold outside of the world banking system. They keep saying how well funded IS yet have taken no steps to stop that funding. That tells you all you need to know about how seriously the US gov wants to stop them. Instead they spend money to enrich military contractors. This is a ploy to remove Assad. They tried last year by blaming him for chemical weapon attacks which was proven to not be from his forces. Fortunately enough Americans weren't naive enough be supportive of war there. But now with a new boogeyman that's coming for our heads many are ok with bombing Syria.

 

[jonatha]

IS isn't trading millions of barrels of oil for gold outside of the world banking system..

I figured Obama was serious about ISIS when he bombed their oil production facilities.

Can't imagine Bush/Cheyney doing that....

 

[Perspicuo]

Yes, I am naive. This is an inside job by the government controlled by the military industry, without conspiracy theory. Gotcha.

(And BTW, thank you for enlightening this conversation--I was about to tie this with the bringing down of the World Trade Center towers that were also brought down via government inside job controlled by the military... but now I know better, that would be conspiracy theory, not this other inside job by the government controlled by the military industry.)