Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

Honestly, I was surprised he even brought it up- at least one of the 4 Americans in question was strongly suspected as being a terrorist, and the warrants for the strikes were all cleared through the secret court process set up during the Bush administration. All 4 strikes were on foreign soil- not in the USA.

The other 3 killed were collateral damage- unfortunate, no doubt, but a small number compared to collateral damage expectations from traditional air strikes. And, from what I understand, despite not being the target of the strike, at least one of those 3 was also a suspected terrorist.

I know who the target was, but I don't approve of even a single American being targeted for murder by our government. That's a line that should not be crossed and Obama is a monster for crossing it.

 

[Umbran]

...and it drops for mothers of American citizens.

That is a myth, as has been pointed out a couple of times already - being the mother of a citizen is not considered in deportation hearings. "Anchor babies," don't have that effect.

 

[Kramodlog]

Honestly, I was surprised he even brought it up- at least one of the 4 Americans in question was strongly suspected as being a terrorist, and the warrants for the strikes were all cleared through the secret court process set up during the Bush administration. All 4 strikes were on foreign soil- not in the USA.

The other 3 killed were collateral damage- unfortunate, no doubt, but a small number compared to collateral damage expectations from traditional air strikes. And, from what I understand, despite not being the target of the strike, at least one of those 3 was also a suspected terrorist.

I'm always amused by this rationalization of the killing of civilians, people who were killed without due process and the language used to dehumanize them (collateral damage). It is the same logic used by so called terrorists. All is done for the greater good. I am less amused that people eat up this propaganda.

 

[Maxperson]

That is a myth, as has been pointed out a couple of times already - being the mother of a citizen is not considered in deportation hearings. "Anchor babies," don't have that effect.

It's in getting them to deportation hearings in the first place. The U.S. doesn't target mothers like it does criminals and others. Hell, it doesn't even hold the illegals it catches coming across the border. It lets them go with a piece of paper telling them that they have to show up for the hearing. Guess how effective that is.

Maybe the judges don't consider the motherhood, but if the mothers aren't showing up in front of them, there's nothing to "not consider."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Every loss of human life is a bad thing, but in war, it will happen. At least in the case of legitimate soldiery, efforts are taken to REDUCE casualties of uninvolved civilians.

Terrorists, OTOH, seek to INCREASE said casualties.

That is a significant ethical difference, IMHO.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm always amused by this rationalization of the killing of civilians, people who were killed without due process and the language used to dehumanize them (collateral damage). It is the same logic used by so called terrorists. All is done for the greater good. I am less amused that people eat up this propaganda.

In any war, collateral damage must happen. You either fight back and accept collateral damage, or you lose. Collateral damage is different from the direct intentional targeting of Americans or even foreign civilians.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I know who the target was, but I don't approve of even a single American being targeted for murder by our government. That's a line that should not be crossed and Obama is a monster for crossing it.

Then perhaps you should take a closer look at those who made such a tool available to him.

Also: would you have been happier if they had used a cruise missile or Special Forces (as Clinton did and Bush would have before drone tech) as opposed to drones on their intended targets (kill or capture), knowing that both of those options would likely have increased the number of innocents killed?

 

[Umbran]

Assuming 11.6 million illegals, many of them will be old, young or housewives.

I don't think illegals have the luxury of having "housewives" all that often.

You're probably looking at 3-4 million in the workforce, a number of whom already make more than 7.25 an hour.

"A number"? What number? Remember, they're illegal, getting paid under the table - the minimum wage laws don't apply.

That's far less than number of American's who will be affected by a minimum wage raise to the Federally proposed 10.10 an hour.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2013 about 3.3 million people made at or below the Federal minimum wage. This number will not include most of the illegals, whose income is not reported in their taxes.

 

[Umbran]

It's in getting them to deportation hearings in the first place. The U.S. doesn't target mothers like it does criminals and others.

Unsupported assertion. Citation needed.

 

[Maxperson]

Then perhaps you should take a closer look at those who made such a tool available to him.

Also: would you have been happier if they had used a cruise missile or Special Forces (as Clinton did and Bush would have before drone tech) as opposed to drones on their intended targets (kill or capture), knowing that both of those options would likely have increased the number of innocents killed?

If Bush or Clinton had targeted Americans to be murdered without due process I would be just as critical of them. Bush and Obama are running neck and neck for the worst Presidents ever. Clinton I really liked.