Honest question: How do democrats justify the fact that Obama has slaughtered thousands of civilians as collateral in...

Honest question: How do democrats justify the fact that Obama has slaughtered thousands of civilians as collateral in drone strikes?

muslims aren't people

i said "democrats" not the average Sup Forums

there's no need for justification to anyone. muslims aren't people

how does op justify being a huge gaylord?

bump

they wuz so we did

BUT TRUMP'S RHETORICCCCCC
basically this

democrats hate the optics of guantanamo. surgically removing terrorists and imprisoning them indefinitely is problematic. their solution to this is droning suspected terrorists. i have a feeling that most of the "collateral damage" are actually terrorist sympathizers so it's not likely that many innocents are being killed.

still your point is a legit line of attack to reveal liberal hypocrisy to your friends and win arguments because they most likely havent thought it out.

There is no thinking it out. "They may be terrorist sympathizers" isnt probable cause for killing, especially in a non-war zone like yemen

Thanks for the real answer senpai

Drones are fine because they're mostly handled discretely by the CIA, so liberals don't have to think about them.

They also fucking work.

It was only bad when Bush did it

what's more likely?
>people surrounded by terrorists are totally innocent and have no idea what's going on
>people surrounded by terrorists are either actively supporting them or at least sympathizing with them


also
>probable cause
yea that doesnt apply unless you're a US citizen. the law concerning engaging enemy combatants overseas is totally different from the law that applies to a US citizen jaywalking or whatever.

>"They may be terrorist sympathizers"

The problem is that this isn't the case. They ARE terrorist sympathizers, if not the equivalent of military personnel outside of combat arms.

>so liberals don't have to think about them.
that's the key. out of sight, out of mind. the alternative is actually catching them and trying to gather intelligence.

im not entirely sure which is better because if we decided to change our strategy to apprehend terrorists instead, we would likely lose american soldiers' lives in the process.

The collateral damage in drone strikes are people who havent been vetted. The targets have been vetted, not whoever happens to be near when they get sploded. I know that US law doesnt extend to non-US citizens. But civilians in non-combat zones like yemen have been killed, and we really have no account for who they were or what they were up to. Its not just an unjustified killing, but its also a sloppy war policy.

He dindu nuffin

Because their lives don't matter.

>thousands of [innocent] civilians
>believing propaganda

Cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. They believe the lies (propaganda). They even believe conflicting truths.

You believe conflicting truths too.

Easy

>he inherited GWB's shitty situation he didn't create it

The Democratic plan to end attacks on Obama's executive use of drone attacks are as follows, in order of most used to less used depending on the audience the statement is made;

>Immediately make note of Bush starting the war Obama 'cleaned up' and mention less deaths and less use of 'boots on the ground'
>Make note of sympathy by painting a picture of a reluctant Obama doing these attacks with carefully laid quotes showing guilt in response to committing murder
>Use troops, their PTSD and many problems, and veterans as a whole as a sympathy factor in how it's patriotic or merciful to kill with robots instead of making US citizens do it

Democrat bases only work on emotional appeal, so every bit of cognitive dissonance or action that contradicts beliefs or so called moral standards they may espouse to have has to be worked around by manipulating emotions of sympathy.

That's the plan, its been the plan, and it will be the same for Hillary. Why do you think we picked a woman to do the worst of the war planning and government overreach?

Because the face of emotional old grandmother bawwing sympathy will bring a people to abandon their defenses in weapons or local policing when federal oversight overtakes your local law enforcement to cure the current 'problem with policing', it will stop the biggest anti war voices since the emotions to engage into conflict will be born from false flagged tragedy being suffered by a presidential poor Granny figure, and it'll bring defenses down and allow a closer move of collectivisation by the state to occur in society.

Ever found a Democrat argument or stance not used in base emotional appeal? It's literally all manipulation, and no one ever figures it out. You people don't deserve a democracy.

>Its not just an unjustified killing, but its also a sloppy war policy.
you're ignoring the reality of war. yes, obviously the ideal is to specifically glass those willing to commit or facilitate terrorism. but to what extent?

>family letting 30 terrorists camp out around their house
>family has 3 innocent children that have no clue what is going on
>do we drone them?

these are the decisions you make in war. if you can think of a single war in history where civilians havent gotten killed, then i'd like to hear it. you've got some sort of video game mentality where only the bad guys are killed and you need to dispose of this thinking.

Source: The numbers I have seen state only 160.

>implying drone strikes are/will be unique to the obama administration
>implying bombing civilians using drones is somehow worse than getting involved in a decades-long pointless war that kills both civilians AND american soldiers