Stupidest viral claims of 2012

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Not quite...you've made the allegation in multiple threads now that Obama/the US "murders" innocent civilians--and even went so far as to make the analogy that we *were* intentionally targeting them to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

Which, unless you can prove a SINGLE case of an American drone strike being done to deliberately kill civilians along with the intended target, is a ridiculous and asinine assertion--but I'm guessing you won't care.

No, unlike you, I don't care much for excusing murder.

Ordering imprecise drone strikes with devastating ordinance where you know innocent civilians are or are likely to be present is murder. You'd have an argument if only one or two of these drone strikes resulted in "collateral damage", but that's not the case.

And fyi: no, I'm not denying that civilians occasionally do get killed. There's a difference when they get killed accidentally when we don't know they're there--and between intentional murder.

Of course you think it's all "accidental". You have no more evidence for that claim than I do mine, though.

Also fyi: I'm sure you recognize that many terrorists intentionally hole themselves up with civilians and/or conduct operational planning meetings in civilian areas to deliberately use them as human shields, right? Any comment on that?

Oh, you mean the same way we put daycare centers at the bottom of federal buildings? You mean the same way many of our military bases are either in or right next to towns?

Wow, looks like those "terrorists" over there have learned a thing or two from the way we do things! Whodathunkit?!

[gatorev12]

[quote]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

No, unlike you, I don't care much for excusing murder.

Unlike you, I know the definition of murder and don't troll the internet trying to make up BS to support my worldview.

Ordering imprecise drone strikes with devastating ordinance where you know innocent civilians are or are likely to be present is murder. You'd have an argument if only one or two of these drone strikes resulted in "collateral damage", but that's not the case.

Not exactly. Again, you're not answering the questions (shocking) and changing things around. YOU alleged (wrongly) that the US intentionally targets civilians in drone strikes without being able to point to a single incident to substantiate your claim. That's either laughably inaccurate, abject laziness, or completely obvious lying. Put up or shut up: name one incident to substantiate your claims or else you were "mistaken" in your blanket statements.

Of course you think it's all "accidental". You have no more evidence for that claim than I do mine, though.

Well, no, actually, I do. Official US policy is NOT to target areas where there's known to be civilians present. If we screw up, investigations are undertaken and compensation is made to the families (regardless if the families involved were intentionally placed there or not).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/wo...ikes.html?_r=0

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dot...-ban-their-use

The agreement senior NATO commanders inked recently with Afghan leaders "doesn't change the R.O.E.," says Army Lt. Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, International Security Assistance Force Joint Command chief and deputy commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, referring to troops' rules of engagement.

U.S. and NATO forces will first use "other means and methods to engage the enemy." If those tactics are all used without success, ground commanders can then request "air-delivered munitions" be dropped on buildings located in civilian areas, Scaparrotti told reporters in Washington via video conference,

There you have it. Airstrikes are a last-resort option--and are supposed to be used only when the target is confirmed to have no civilians present.

Obviously, mistakes can and do happen--but there is absolutely NOTHING to substantiate your assertion that there's intentional targeting going on. Only your lies.

Oh, you mean the same way we put daycare centers at the bottom of federal buildings? You mean the same way many of our military bases are either in or right next to towns?

More misdirection. Following Oklahoma City (a domestic terrorist that had nothing to do with international terrorism), daycare centers were moved out of federal buildings, contrary to your implication here. I challenge you to name ONE foreign terrorist incident that killed American children in a federal building after that. Maybe 9/11 (in which thousands died), but aside from that, you have nothing.

Bringing up military bases is more laughably inaccurate lying. Unless a foreign entity is using a nuclear bomb, there is absolutely no way that targeting an American military base harms any of the towns or cities in close proximity. None. Try taking a peak at ANY domestic American base and see if it's remotely possible for a bomb to take out civilian areas nearby. Simply cannot happen following the restrictions put in place after 9/11.

Wow, looks like those "terrorists" over there have learned a thing or two from the way we do things! Whodathunkit?!

Actually, no. They haven't...they deliberately place themselves in civilian areas and use human shields to dare their enemies to strike at them. The only people who actually sympathize with such scum are bleeding heart types or worthless naive idiots.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Unlike you, I know the definition of murder and don't troll the internet trying to make up BS to support my worldview.

No, apparently you don't know the definition of murder. And I certainly don't need to make anything up. The government does it for me. They're the ones bombing and murdering innocent people. If you want to worship them for it, be my guest.

Not exactly. Again, you're not answering the questions (shocking) and changing things around. YOU alleged (wrongly) that the US intentionally targets civilians in drone strikes without being able to point to a single incident to substantiate your claim. That's either laughably inaccurate, abject laziness, or completely obvious lying. Put up or shut up: name one incident to substantiate your claims or else you were "mistaken" in your blanket statements.

LOL, of course the U.S. government targets civilians. If they weren't targeting civilians, they wouldn't have killed so many hundreds of civilians. They kill civilians because they believe its OK to create "collateral damage" in war. It's still murder, though. Doesn't matter how much you whine and complain about it.

Murder. Murder. Murder.

Well, no, actually, I do.

No you don't.

Official US policy is NOT to target areas where there's known to be civilians present.

LOL, that's just what they tell you. "Official policy" gives them plausible deniability. That way, if they hit a civilian target, they can always say it was an "accident". After all, the "official policy" says so. They don't target civilian targets, so it MUST have been an accident.

Don't you know anything?

If we screw up, investigations are undertaken and compensation is made to the families (regardless if the families involved were intentionally placed there or not).

More nonsense. Yes, the government "investigates" itself, kind of the same way the fox is left in charge of looking after the chicken coop. And any money they pay is not even their money, it was stolen from the taxpayers!

Who are you trying to kid with this propaganda?

There you have it. Airstrikes are a last-resort option--and are supposed to be used only when the target is confirmed to have no civilians present.

There I have what? There's nothing in your links to support your case. You've basically got some government employees saying they are going to "limit" how many civilians they murder.

LOL, is that the best you've got?

Obviously, mistakes can and do happen--but there is absolutely NOTHING to substantiate your assertion that there's intentional targeting going on. Only your lies.

False. The proof is in the pudding. Hundreds of civilians have been killed in countless strikes.

Now, either the government is completely incompetent, or they are doing it on purpose. You pick.

More misdirection. Following Oklahoma City (a domestic terrorist that had nothing to do with international terrorism), daycare centers were moved out of federal buildings, contrary to your implication here. I challenge you to name ONE foreign terrorist incident that killed American children in a federal building after that. Maybe 9/11 (in which thousands died), but aside from that, you have nothing.

It doesn't change the fact that it happened, no matter how much you stomp your feet. And the only reason the government changed the policy is because public sentiment demanded it.

Bringing up military bases is more laughably inaccurate lying. Unless a foreign entity is using a nuclear bomb, there is absolutely no way that targeting an American military base harms any of the towns or cities in close proximity. None. Try taking a peak at ANY domestic American base and see if it's remotely possible for a bomb to take out civilian areas nearby. Simply cannot happen following the restrictions put in place after 9/11.

Irrelevant, military bases use civilian-populated areas as "human shields" the same way terrorists do.

Actually, no. They haven't...they deliberately place themselves in civilian areas and use human shields to dare their enemies to strike at them. The only people who actually sympathize with such scum are bleeding heart types or worthless naive idiots.

Yep, sounds just like that federal building in Oklahoma City and all of our military and naval bases inside of towns and cities. You've really got to give those terrorists credit for seeing how we do things and copying us. We're the unchallenged kings of using human shields.

Don't be so distraught about it, man. You'll be OK.

[ChartsandGrafs]

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Are the infowars forums down or something?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Are the infowars forums down or something?

Alex Jones was on Piers Morgan last night. The whole operation falls apart when he leaves the bunker.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I'm sure that was an intelligent discussion.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I'm sure that was an intelligent discussion.

How could it not be with two high minded intellects engaging in deep discusion of today's pressing issues?

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/08/alex...s_morgan_show/

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Are the infowars forums down or something?

You tell me. You probably spend more time there than I do.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Burn?

[ChartsandGrafs]

LOL, got to love the cognitive dissonance.

A: "Drones are murdering a large number of innocents, including women and children, overseas. "

B: "But, but, but... Alex Jones! Infowars! A derp a derp a derp!"

[ChartsandGrafs]

Derp?

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Yeah, the "I know you are but what am I" come is illuminating insight.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

I happen to wholly agree that our drone policy is murderous and awful. But most of what you post is so hopelessly superficial and so lacking in nuance that I couldn't help but assume you were an Alex Jones fan. My apologies if I was wrong.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

I happen to wholly agree that our drone policy is murderous and awful. But most of what you post is so hopelessly superficial and so lacking in nuance that I couldn't help but assume you were an Alex Jones fan. My apologies if I was wrong.

Making uninformed assumptions doesn't sound very nuanced of you.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Nah, it's fairly informed.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Making uninformed assumptions doesn't sound very nuanced of you.

The irony in this post is so thick, you'd need a chainsaw to cut through it

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Yeah, the "I know you are but what am I" come is illuminating insight.

Illuminating as to the maturity of the poster...but given his posting history, I'm not surprised he comes across as rather childish.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Like I said, I totally agree about the drone stuff. It's disgusting and nobody should support it.

But when your posting history looks like a Alex Jones Show recap bullet list, it's hard to take it all seriously as a whole.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Nah, it's fairly informed.

No, not really. You made an assumption you later felt the need to apologize for.

That doesn't sound very informed at all.