Though the ongoing drone attacks are said to be part of a protracted campaign to reign in gang activity, there are at least 17 children counted among the dead, as well as 43 adults who are confirmed to have been civilian non-combatants
Minors can be gang members and murderers.
Interesting would be to know how many people the gangs killed on the same time. How many people did police kill in other ways in recent years?
indeed, very little context and information but you still felt the need to say that the children that were killed were probably gang members and murderers. A bit weird if you ask me, but you do you.
You might be innocently asking, but be aware that what you did is a common rhetorical technique that right-wing propagandists use to stop people from caring about violence against the innocent.
If you had brought up the possibility that the police were, say, killing children for money with their drones, or their drones were being hacked by criminal gangs, or that US mercenary groups - like the one run by Erik Prince - are actually flying them, then you may not have mistakenly furthered the goals of empire.
You were told that 17 children were killed by drones and dismissed that by saying “they could have been gang members.” That implies that you are okay with those children being killed by the drones, because they could have been gang members.
I’m just pointing out how absurd it is to say that because anyone anywhere could be a criminal, that doesn’t mean they should be killed by a drone.
Minors can be gang members and murderers.
Interesting would be to know how many people the gangs killed on the same time. How many people did police kill in other ways in recent years?
Pretends to care about nuance by positing children could be murderers
Blatantly ignores 43 confirmed innocents killed mentioned in own comment
Please just look at OC’s post history, this is par for the course.
You could also be a gang member and murderer. Never can be sure. So I guess a police drone should be on its way to you?
Haiti is a pretty violent place. This article tells us very little context.
indeed, very little context and information but you still felt the need to say that the children that were killed were probably gang members and murderers. A bit weird if you ask me, but you do you.
I mean possibly.
Yeah I know. That’s why I said that its possible that you are also a gang member and should be droned. I assume you don’t have a problem with that.
I didn’t say anything about anyone should be droned.
Just asking questions, eh?
You might be innocently asking, but be aware that what you did is a common rhetorical technique that right-wing propagandists use to stop people from caring about violence against the innocent.
If you had brought up the possibility that the police were, say, killing children for money with their drones, or their drones were being hacked by criminal gangs, or that US mercenary groups - like the one run by Erik Prince - are actually flying them, then you may not have mistakenly furthered the goals of empire.
You were told that 17 children were killed by drones and dismissed that by saying “they could have been gang members.” That implies that you are okay with those children being killed by the drones, because they could have been gang members.
I’m just pointing out how absurd it is to say that because anyone anywhere could be a criminal, that doesn’t mean they should be killed by a drone.
Just because they are minors, doesn’t make them innocent by default.
The whole article is devoid of details on how these drones are used.