Latest Breaking News

JoeyT

(6,785 posts)

16. That's one of the vilest defenses I've seen of that particular incident.

Sat Apr 5, 2014, 04:37 AM

Apr 2014

You've just declared that governments should kill citizens not just for thought crimes, but for potential future thought crimes, especially if they're related to criminals. You defend it by citing 9/11 over and over, which only makes sense if you operate on George Bush level logic of "Muslims did 9/11 so any Muslims we kill deserves it cause 9/11!".

Your arguments haven't shed any light at all on drone strikes or their legality, but they've pointed an entire sun worth of light at you.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Judge tosses lawsuit over drone deaths of Americans [View all] MindMover Apr 2014 OP

Just goes to prove you can file suit for anything. Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #1

The bin Laden family are friends of the Bush's, one of the US's first-families. delrem Apr 2014 #3

Also, the ones killed on 9/11 was not involved in conflicts, I am so sure this kid was not Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #5

"perhaps in the future"??? delrem Apr 2014 #6

well, do you know what the future may have been for the 15 year old? Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #7

He's dead. The US killed him. Period. delrem Apr 2014 #8

Like the price of 9/11? Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #9

The fact that the US killed him with a drone has nothing to do with "9/11". delrem Apr 2014 #10

Do you know the reason his father was sought? Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #11

He is not his father. delrem Apr 2014 #12

His father recruited followers to follow his commands. Again do you know the reason his father was Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #13

OK. I write you off. Goodbye. delrem Apr 2014 #14

It's quite simple: JoeyT Apr 2014 #17

The son wasn't the target of the strike that killed him (nt) Recursion Apr 2014 #19

he knows this damn well. nt. dionysus Apr 2014 #20

Who was the target of 9/11? I am still waiting on the answer. Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #24

What does a kid who was 3 or 4 years old in 2001 have to do Cal Carpenter Apr 2014 #32

You have turned have the whole picture before understanding. Still Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #36

That's one of the vilest defenses I've seen of that particular incident. JoeyT Apr 2014 #16

Yes I continue to site 9/11, still I do not hear the reason why the father was targeted. Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #25

It doesn't matter why the father was targeted. JoeyT Apr 2014 #34

Then the rest of the world can say it doesnt matter, the father should have protected Thinkingabout Apr 2014 #37

Seriously?? 9/11 justifies guilt-by-proximity in drone strikes? cprise Apr 2014 #30

Gosh. Whatever happened to the Right to sue government for a redress of grievances? Octafish Apr 2014 #2

You still have that right; but it's proportional to the amount of free speech you have pffshht Apr 2014 #15

The next big thing: proportional voting. Octafish Apr 2014 #22

Err... they did sue. Recursion Apr 2014 #18

Uh, I meant the Justice part. Octafish Apr 2014 #21

So, the court applying the relevant case law on this question... Recursion Apr 2014 #23

What law says it's OK for a president to kill Americans without trial? Octafish Apr 2014 #26

In this case, the 2001 AUMF Recursion Apr 2014 #27

That may trump the Constitution for you, but not for me. Octafish Apr 2014 #28

Military targeting of US citizens goes back to 1791 Recursion Apr 2014 #29

So, you're OK with that? Octafish Apr 2014 #31

What a weird question Recursion Apr 2014 #33

No. I found yours to be an odd answer. Octafish Apr 2014 #35

This is why I opposed the 2001 AUMF as written Recursion Apr 2014 #38

A 16 year old American boy was killed for no good reason. Octafish Apr 2014 #39

Several hundred younger Pakistanis have, too Recursion Apr 2014 #40

The opposite of despair is anger Demeter Apr 2014 #4