How is it a bad fit? The guy said: "One does not extend acronyms." It's an acronym, it's extended. It's a made up rule that is clearly not true and even if it is not the proper and traditional method of generating a nationality from a nation name that doesn't mean it can't be.
If you're going to be pedantic and obnoxious I don't think it's too much to ask to also be accurate.
Because serious fucked-up mistakes never happen with human drivers. Are you by chance descended from a long history of luddites or are you just an opportunist looking to make a profit by causing countless injuries and death with your ridiculously ignorant FUD?
To be more precise it is not because the US supports Israel, but because leaders in the Middle East have used that as a tool to manipulate their people and gain or maintain power. If it weren't for all the propaganda the vast majority of people in the Middle East wouldn't care about Israel and would just go on trying to live their lives.
How is any of what you said they believe illogical, let alone insane? The only illogical part is in thinking that they have a chance of winning, but even that makes sense if you believe the almighty is on your side.
MILF also isn't a fruit, among the many other things it isn't. However, it is an acronym - perhaps you are getting the words 'acronym' and 'nation' confused? Thank you for making what was already a ridiculous and pedantic tangent even dumber.
That's not a solution, that's a fantasy. Complete isolation is both impractical and stupid. Provide one example where this strategy has been implemented and worked well for ANY country.
Without the "great Satan USA" they would have found some other "evil" that suited their needs. People have been doing that for thousands of years, which I believe is longer than the great Satan has been around.
These are not indiscriminate attacks, far from it. In any operation there will be risk of collateral damage; if you set the bar at zero then you will never do anything. Unless you're willing to give them free rein there will be some risk of taking an innocent life. Reasonable people can disagree on how much risk is acceptable for the goals, but only unreasonable people would say that zero is the right answer.
In your lifetime? There hasn't been an existential threat to the US in over two hundred years. Although if we didn't have standing army there probably would have been.
You know why that story is so well known? Because a David beating a Goliath is incredibly rare. They don't write the stories of the 1000's of Goliaths that crushed 1000's of Davids into dust. That's not interesting, it's routine.
You seriously have a lot of sympathy for people who knowingly put themselves in harm's way and end up paying the consequences? Do you also spend your days weeping over reckless drivers who kill themselves when they are unable to control their vehicle? You are short changing all the people in the world who truly deserve your sympathy.
Your definition of humane should be seriously questioned if you can't find a slight bit of difference between intentionally killing innocent civilians (terrorism) and collateral damage from drone strikes where every attempt is made to limit civilian damage.
If civilian casualties happen in only 1 in 3 drone attacks then it is less common than I think/thought, actually. This has nothing to do with the imaginative scenario we're talking about, however.
Can you provide a link to even one example of the scenario he described happening? No, you can't or you would have done so already.
In the very different scenario of this small village you talk about, yes you either stand up to them or face the consequences of not standing up to them. At the very least you support the people who are trying to stop them.
You seem to have the misunderstanding that I'm saying that everyone should thoroughly vet everyone they ever associate with. I'm not. I also had people at my wedding who I did not know and some of them were even dark skinned. However, I'm 99.999% certain that none of them were terrorists or supporting terrorists. In the cases of wedding bombings that I'm aware of it was (or should have been) clear to just about everyone in attendance (including the December strike in Yemen).
Yes, those brothers and sons will be so angry they will also start an argument with you. At which point you have to kill them too (and another dozen bystanders). Even if the AK-47 strategy is not effective, which is unclear, let's not pretend that the strategy of the martyr is any better. Sometimes it's better to let things go, some cultures don't get that and possibly never will.
To my knowledge this kind of situation happens very rarely, if ever. There is no question that there are some cases where you wouldn't use drones, but that doesn't mean they should never be used. If there are safer alternatives for accomplishing the same goal then they should be used instead, usually there aren't.
Your example is extreme, but in the vast majority of cases it is clear to everyone (except perhaps small children) that these are bad dudes and it should just be common sense not to hang around them or do business with them. I have little sympathy for them, just as I would people who hang around organized criminals and get caught in the crossfire.
Cowardly? Are you suggesting we just put down all our weapons and decide a war by one on one hand to hand combat? Whether it is war or policing, it is not cowardly to use every tool at your disposal to dispatch the enemy, even if it's unfair (which the American military against anyone in the world would be, right now).
Try reading and thinking more than just talking, I've already provided all the information you need to get you started. Or just continue playing the stooge and blindly thinking what the authorities tell you to think: "be afraid and trust us to take care of you."
"A bomb can kill thousands!" Everybody panic! You surely have drunk the kool aid.
All the answers have already been provided to you. If you try actually thinking about the problem rather than just blindly following what you're told then you're half way there.
Do you understand any kind of reasoning? I've explained my reasoning to you (and the other guy) about 5 different times and you still take your black and white view that there are only two choices: 1) go in with guns blazing at every situation or 2) do nothing. Even if, in your deluded world, those were the only options is the second one so bad? How many kids were blown up by actual bombs in Canadian schools last year? In the last 5 years?
Actually, you made the first personal comment, but never mind that. If you don't want to be "flamed" then don't be a moron and try having an actual discussion, rather than repeating the same nonsense. So let me sum up your argument which has not budged one inch:
"Always trust the police. They know what they're doing and know what's best for you."
"Ignore any consequences and costs of overreacting to imaginary threats; doing something or appearing to do something is the important thing."
Slashdot Mirror
You're overlooking the word 'strategy' in the title.
How is it a bad fit? The guy said: "One does not extend acronyms." It's an acronym, it's extended. It's a made up rule that is clearly not true and even if it is not the proper and traditional method of generating a nationality from a nation name that doesn't mean it can't be.
If you're going to be pedantic and obnoxious I don't think it's too much to ask to also be accurate.
Because serious fucked-up mistakes never happen with human drivers. Are you by chance descended from a long history of luddites or are you just an opportunist looking to make a profit by causing countless injuries and death with your ridiculously ignorant FUD?
To be more precise it is not because the US supports Israel, but because leaders in the Middle East have used that as a tool to manipulate their people and gain or maintain power. If it weren't for all the propaganda the vast majority of people in the Middle East wouldn't care about Israel and would just go on trying to live their lives.
How is any of what you said they believe illogical, let alone insane? The only illogical part is in thinking that they have a chance of winning, but even that makes sense if you believe the almighty is on your side.
MILF also isn't a fruit, among the many other things it isn't. However, it is an acronym - perhaps you are getting the words 'acronym' and 'nation' confused? Thank you for making what was already a ridiculous and pedantic tangent even dumber.
You've made an excellent case for why you, personally, should not be designing a driverless car.
That's not a solution, that's a fantasy. Complete isolation is both impractical and stupid. Provide one example where this strategy has been implemented and worked well for ANY country.
Without the "great Satan USA" they would have found some other "evil" that suited their needs. People have been doing that for thousands of years, which I believe is longer than the great Satan has been around.
One does not extend acronyms. Perhaps you could come up with even a single example to the contrary?
MILFish. You're welcome.
These are not indiscriminate attacks, far from it. In any operation there will be risk of collateral damage; if you set the bar at zero then you will never do anything. Unless you're willing to give them free rein there will be some risk of taking an innocent life. Reasonable people can disagree on how much risk is acceptable for the goals, but only unreasonable people would say that zero is the right answer.
In your lifetime? There hasn't been an existential threat to the US in over two hundred years. Although if we didn't have standing army there probably would have been.
You know why that story is so well known? Because a David beating a Goliath is incredibly rare. They don't write the stories of the 1000's of Goliaths that crushed 1000's of Davids into dust. That's not interesting, it's routine.
I'll ignore the ridiculous hyperbole and ask a simple question: what's your solution, then? The world is eager to hear your response.
You seriously have a lot of sympathy for people who knowingly put themselves in harm's way and end up paying the consequences? Do you also spend your days weeping over reckless drivers who kill themselves when they are unable to control their vehicle? You are short changing all the people in the world who truly deserve your sympathy.
Your definition of humane should be seriously questioned if you can't find a slight bit of difference between intentionally killing innocent civilians (terrorism) and collateral damage from drone strikes where every attempt is made to limit civilian damage.
If civilian casualties happen in only 1 in 3 drone attacks then it is less common than I think/thought, actually. This has nothing to do with the imaginative scenario we're talking about, however.
Can you provide a link to even one example of the scenario he described happening? No, you can't or you would have done so already.
In the very different scenario of this small village you talk about, yes you either stand up to them or face the consequences of not standing up to them. At the very least you support the people who are trying to stop them.
You seem to have the misunderstanding that I'm saying that everyone should thoroughly vet everyone they ever associate with. I'm not. I also had people at my wedding who I did not know and some of them were even dark skinned. However, I'm 99.999% certain that none of them were terrorists or supporting terrorists. In the cases of wedding bombings that I'm aware of it was (or should have been) clear to just about everyone in attendance (including the December strike in Yemen).
Yes, those brothers and sons will be so angry they will also start an argument with you. At which point you have to kill them too (and another dozen bystanders). Even if the AK-47 strategy is not effective, which is unclear, let's not pretend that the strategy of the martyr is any better. Sometimes it's better to let things go, some cultures don't get that and possibly never will.
To my knowledge this kind of situation happens very rarely, if ever. There is no question that there are some cases where you wouldn't use drones, but that doesn't mean they should never be used. If there are safer alternatives for accomplishing the same goal then they should be used instead, usually there aren't.
Your example is extreme, but in the vast majority of cases it is clear to everyone (except perhaps small children) that these are bad dudes and it should just be common sense not to hang around them or do business with them. I have little sympathy for them, just as I would people who hang around organized criminals and get caught in the crossfire.
Cowardly? Are you suggesting we just put down all our weapons and decide a war by one on one hand to hand combat? Whether it is war or policing, it is not cowardly to use every tool at your disposal to dispatch the enemy, even if it's unfair (which the American military against anyone in the world would be, right now).
Try reading and thinking more than just talking, I've already provided all the information you need to get you started. Or just continue playing the stooge and blindly thinking what the authorities tell you to think: "be afraid and trust us to take care of you."
"A bomb can kill thousands!" Everybody panic! You surely have drunk the kool aid.
All the answers have already been provided to you. If you try actually thinking about the problem rather than just blindly following what you're told then you're half way there.
Dude, chill out. Why the personal attacks?
Do you understand any kind of reasoning? I've explained my reasoning to you (and the other guy) about 5 different times and you still take your black and white view that there are only two choices: 1) go in with guns blazing at every situation or 2) do nothing. Even if, in your deluded world, those were the only options is the second one so bad? How many kids were blown up by actual bombs in Canadian schools last year? In the last 5 years?
Actually, you made the first personal comment, but never mind that. If you don't want to be "flamed" then don't be a moron and try having an actual discussion, rather than repeating the same nonsense. So let me sum up your argument which has not budged one inch:
"Always trust the police. They know what they're doing and know what's best for you."
"Ignore any consequences and costs of overreacting to imaginary threats; doing something or appearing to do something is the important thing."