Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Always, that's probably why my posts look so foreign to you.
Killing an unarmed terrorist reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat doesn't even meet the ROE for a drone strike in Afghanistan. Why would it here at home?
Not speculation, it's simple reason.
The two scenarios are not analogous.
Nobody has ever said that, you're either making it up, are grossly misinformed or perhaps just a bit wacky.
Here's the rub. Would anybody have had an issue with the US Air Force shooting down one of the 9/11 planes? Nope. Would anybody have an issue with the US Air Force shooting down a plane loaded with explosives headed toward NYC? Nope...
Well, perhaps Rand would.
Ahhh, and out comes Mr. Hyde. I thought you were getting a bit wacky in that last paragraph.
-spence
|
"Killing an unarmed terrorist reading a book in a field, who is no imminent threat doesn't even meet the ROE for a drone strike in Afghanistan":
See, once again, you are making things up as you go along. According to the Geneva Convention, it is absolutely acceptable to kill enemy soldiers, even if they are asleep and thus not an imminent threat. Drone strikes aren't launched to kill terrorists who are literally in the act of trying to kill anybody, they aren't that precise (that's what snipers are for).
Spence, do you think that soldiers can only kill other soldiers in self defense? Those are the ROE's for police departments, not the standards in time of war.
Where do you get your "information"? Have you no shame? None at all? Spence, if you're going to make up jibberish, try not to invent jibberishthat is so demonstrably false. Try to at least fabricate something that might fool a 6 year-old.
Threaded Mode