by Phantomgrift » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:31 pm
By all means, tell me where the reporting came from. Please, educate me on what specifically makes a report by Amnesty International in no way biased, and completely, honestly factual as to what "collateral damage" is real, and which part is exaggerated fluff put forth by angry individuals that aren't exactly going to want to describe how some of their acquaintances were honestly working with known terrorist groups.
Yes Dex, justify to me that America is nothing more than faceless executioners, happily killing whomever we please, giggling and laughing at our job, because me and others in the military are nothing more than sanctioned killers for hire.
Oh, I'm sorry? The report didn't say that?
It was actually objective and I'm reading to much into it? Or not enough in context? Or I should trust Dex, random civilian citizen who wouldn't know the first thing about drone warfare from flying a 747. Obviously I'm just a pawn of the Man and blind to the horrors perpetuated upon civilized society by tyrannical overlords.
Justify it Dex.
Because all this does it turn something on the internet into metaphorical dick-waving over subjects bolstered by random shit pulled from the internet.
I mean, I'd pull personal job experience into it, but obviously, individual training on various things related to a subject aren't empirical enough when held to the shining example of biased media reporting that you've educated yourself so firmly in.
Educate us all indeed.
(I'm not going to justify jack and shit. I'll simply give you sarcastic answers. And honestly, you vapid git, even if I crafted the most airtight argument justifying every case of drone usage ever carried out, you still wouldn't change your opinion simply because it was something I contributed to. That offends your delicate and self-centered sensibilities entirely to much to allow.)
Waiter... Waiter?
Curses! When will I ever remember; Order dessert first and THEN kill everyone in the restaurant.