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.
I don’t think anybody agrees there’s a context where police killing children with drones is justified.
I don’t think anybody should agree with police killing children in any context.
I don’t think any reaaonable person, even those who agree there are situations where lethal force by the police is justified, would agree a drone strike is the right way to dispense justice.
But seagulls have to seagull I guess, so go ahead with your dishonest “questions”.
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.
That is correct, being children doesn’t make them innocent by default, Being human makes them innocent by default.
You need to prove they are criminals before you start punishments.
See, we agree.
I don’t think anybody agrees there’s a context where police killing children with drones is justified.
I don’t think anybody should agree with police killing children in any context.
I don’t think any reaaonable person, even those who agree there are situations where lethal force by the police is justified, would agree a drone strike is the right way to dispense justice.
But seagulls have to seagull I guess, so go ahead with your dishonest “questions”.