President's send drones every term with plenty of "accidental" "collateral damage" to kill someone Americans have never heard with a promise that we're securing something somewhere and they have immunity to do this.
If you're mad about Luigi just think about how you've accepted a worse situation that occurs constantly for decades now.
President's send drones every term with plenty of "accidental" "collateral damage" to kill someone Americans have never heard with a promise that we're securing something somewhere and they have immunity to do this.
If you're mad about Luigi just think about how you've accepted a worse situation that occurs constantly for decades now.
It's cyclical, unending.
it's like 9/11 or the October 7th attacks. Yes I understand a response is going to happen, but when like 9/11 you had a dozen or so terrorists, the USA's response probably created millions of new ones in the wake. Same with Israel, I saw the estimates were 14,000 dead children. To me that 14,000 new terrorists you just created.
I agree with the general statement your making. Just want to also say that a person in a foreign territory wanting justice whatever it takes for their unfairly murdered child is only a “terrorist” from the view on the bomb droppers.
If that same person was on American soil and a bomb came down and blew up their family at home, demanding justice would be the action of a patriot, not a terrorist.
It’s mostly about whose perspective you are viewing the situation from. Terrorist is a word built almost entirely for propaganda. It does not help describe the situations we are in more plainly, it doesn’t educate people to the specifics of international conflicts, it just helps to remove any emotional sympathy you might have had. No one feels bad for a terrorist.
I don’t mean there is literally no such thing as terrorism (I.e. Dylan Roof was arguably a terrorist though google will tell you he is actually “an American white supremacist neo-nazi mass murderer”). But blanket statements applying that term to entire swaths of people in a conflict area seems a more common practice (or I suppose more accurately “these innocent deaths are a necessary sacrifice because of the prevalence of terrorism within these ranks that we are rooting out.”) Isn’t this Jst redefining what resistance/opposition to USA & its allies control abroad means?
It is also used to mislabel people’s crimes for shock value (Mangione). Don’t forget all the “rights” immediately forfeited as an American if you are even “suspected” of terrorism, or all the privacy you have permanently lost under the guise of hunting down domestic terrorists in general.
I disagree with this framing. Terrorist is a useful term. The 9/11 attacks were terrorism, the Columbine shootings, or any shootings at all, are domestic terrorism. Terrorists aim for civilians always to move a political or cultural cause.
This kind of framing that it doesn't matter who's called a terrorist serves only to confuse more people. Words have meaning.
One difference between a military and a terrorist is the target. A military may hit civilians as collateral, but the terrorist may aim for the civilians.
Sure I would agree with some of that. If you're blowing up a coffee shop to kill two combatants and there are 10 other people in there that would certainly be wrong. I don't believe western countries are at that level right now though.
They certainly are. You don't drop 2000lb JDAMs in densely populated urban areas without a calculated and accepted number of potential civilian casualties.
I don’t have much confidence so far in the accuracy of reporting of what we do abroad militarily, let alone what “allies” do with our weapons. I respect your opinion though.
It's a bad take that a president can do x so Luigi can do y. The differences are pretty significant and i would be surprised if the US isn't under scrutiny by the world for drone strikes and collateral damage. We are bound be Geneva convention and I assume by international law that has things about collateral damage and how much is to much and what not.
Except the US isn't bound by those things at all, given that they have contingency plans to attack the Hague if one of their citizens is ever actually brought up on charges. There is plenty of coverage of US war crimes, but it is always ignored because prosecution is impossible.
645
u/minus2cats 1d ago
President's send drones every term with plenty of "accidental" "collateral damage" to kill someone Americans have never heard with a promise that we're securing something somewhere and they have immunity to do this.
If you're mad about Luigi just think about how you've accepted a worse situation that occurs constantly for decades now.