America’s War on Children Abroad

neighbors were militantsSANADer Spiegel has an illuminating profile of a drone pilot for the United States Air Force, Brandon Bryant, and what the work entails:

When he received the order to fire, he pressed a button with his left hand and marked the roof with a laser. The pilot sitting next to him pressed the trigger on a joystick, causing the drone to launch a Hellfire missile. There were 16 seconds left until impact.

With seven seconds left to go, there was no one to be seen on the ground. Bryant could still have diverted the missile at that point. Then it was down to three seconds. Bryant felt as if he had to count each individual pixel on the monitor. Suddenly a child walked around the corner, he says.

Second zero was the moment in which Bryant's digital world collided with the real one in a village between Baghlan and Mazar-e-Sharif [in Afghanistan].
Bryant saw a flash on the screen: the explosion. Parts of the building collapsed. The child had disappeared. Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.

"Did we just kill a kid?" he asked the man sitting next to him.

"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.
"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world who had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.

They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs?

"I saw men, women and children die during that time," Bryant told Der Spiegel. "I never thought I would kill that many people. In fact, I thought I couldn't kill anyone at all."

At least 176 children have been killed in U.S. drone strikes in nearby Pakistan alone, with more than twenty more in Yemen and at least one in Somalia, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

In Afghanistan, though, children can apparently be legitimate targets. After NATO called a 12 year old, a 10 year old and an 8 year old killed in a Marine airstrike “innocent Afghan civilians,” the Marines took umbrage. The children were digging a hole, which could’ve been used to place a roadside bomb. “In addition to looking for military-age males, it’s looking for children with potential hostile intent,” a Marine general explained. “Military-age male” is already pretty much the only requirement to label someone killed in a drone strike a militant so including children is just a matter of revising the meaning of “military age” downward. Forward! 

h/t to db for the link

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    UnPlanned Parenthood kills more than that before coffee break.

  • $park¥||

    Needs more hysterics if you want to get an abortion debate going.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Needs more hysterics if you want to get an abortion debate going.

    For reals. Planned Parenthood is nothing but a piker. Millions of my potential children died on Concerned Citizen's daughter's face last night.

    ZING!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Needs more hysterics if you want to get an abortion debate going.

    For reals. Planned Parenthood is nothing but a piker. Millions of my potential children died on Concerned Citizen's daughter's face last night.

    ZING!

  • ||

    Gamete =/= Zygote

  • $park¥||

    Every sperm is sacred.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A gamete has the potential to be a child, if certain conditions are met. That's something pro-life and pro-choice has in common, yes? As for whether a zygote is a potential child or a child in actuality....

  • ||

    It is the earliest stage of human development. The argument is over where in development humans have rights. Statements like "it's just a clump of cells" is just as much of a non sequitur as "God imbues the soul at conception."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I agree, but I don't really see why we're not talking about facial porn instead.

  • ||

    It's settled then, facial porn is a much more interesting topic of discussion.

  • Zeb||

    I've never really understood the desire to watch someone ejaculate on another person's face. Nor really the desire to do it oneself.

  • Restoras||

    Think of it like finger painting, but with your penis instead.

  • WTF||

    See, this is why I love Hit & Run. Where else would an article on children being killed by drones morph into a discussion on bukkake?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • nicole||

    Obligatory Jaiya "The White Tigress" link.

    Took long enough.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    One doesn't invoke the name of the Goddess lightly, nicole.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Drone bukkake!

    Hellfire missile after Hellfire misslie.

  • WTF||

    Drone bukkake!

    Hellfire missile after Hellfire misslie.

    I must be a horrible person because that made me laugh.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Nor really the desire to do it oneself.

    You have to say "boo-ya-ka-sha" while you do it.

  • Randian||

    I've never really understood the desire to watch someone ejaculate on another person's face. Nor really the desire to do it oneself.

    I second that emotion.

  • Scarcity||

    Thirded. You really wanna get to the grand finale and finish up with all the pleasure of being alone in the bathroom?

  • ||

    A gamete has the potential to be a child in the same way a dishrag has the potential to be an area rug

  • Zeb||

    Still a potential child with some degree of independent life.

  • ||

    At best it is half of a potential child. Which is really no potential at all.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Just lacking the right cloning science. SCIENTISTS ARE KILLING MY UNCONCIEVED BABIES!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Let's be fair - the post criticizes the Obama administration for a, shall we say, selective outrage at the death of children. Thus making a perfect set-up for mentioning abortion.

  • $park¥||

    To you every post is a perfect set-up for mentioning abortion.

  • ||

    Outrage that a nutcase killed some children with a gun, but no outrage that politicians and the military kill children with drones. Something seems off about that. What could it be?

  • Hugh Akston||

  • Doctor Whom||

    If Adam Lanza had paid closer attention, he would have known that there are politically correct and politically incorrect ways of killing lots of kids.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If only he had run for office. He would be a hero today.

  • Paul.||

    Nobel Peace prize for sure.

  • ||

    All he needed was a platform of raising the debt ceiling and killing children from the sky, and he'd have been a shoo-in. It worked for Obama, after all.

  • ||

    Don't forget the stealing, you idiot.

  • Libertymike||

    On Friday, both John and Tarran hurled uninformed, ignorant invective at me because I pointed out that the dear leader, mr. affirmative action, routinely engages in infanticide.

    John told me to go fuck myself and tarran called me an asshole.

    THIS IS A LIBERTARIAN SITE. NO ROOM FOR STATISTS OR THEIR APOLOGISTS.

  • Randian||

    Everyone is a statist in your eyes.

  • ||

    So you don't believe anyone should express opposing opinions? You like to speak in an echo chamber? You sound like a progressive TEAM BLUE moron.

  • Libertymike||

    There is no support for the proposition you set forth, Kaptious, in my post. You have chosen to employ a logical fallacy.

    That I declare the obvious, i.e., that this is a libertarian blog, does not thereby transform my declaration into a demand for an echo chamber.

    How, pray tell, do I sound like a progressive TEAM BLUE moron?

    If one is rational, one does not condemn another for pointing out that Obama is also a mass murderer who cares not for the welfare of Pakistani or Yemeni youngsters.

  • ||

    NO ROOM FOR STATISTS OR THEIR APOLOGISTS

    U stupid?

  • Proprietist||

    Alas, Mike, we did not question your point. We questioned your timing. Learn a bit of nuance and tact, buddy.

  • tarran||

    Mike, calling you an asshole is not apologizing for the state.

    In fact, if you had made your comments after Obama had inserted himself into the media firestorm, you would have had nary a peep from me.

    But you were being an asshole, and I called you out for it. Ordinarily I ignore your assholery, but I was pissed off that you were driving the outrage in a direction that would inevitably devolve into partisan back-and-forths.

    Of course, this was stupid of me, because the narcissist in chief wasn't going to ignore this, and his entrance was inevitable, and me verbally bitch-slapping you wasn't going to prevent that any more than a real bitch slap stops a stampede.

  • Randian||

    Oh, let me guess: LM made some sort of comment like "Eh, so what? Obama kills kids every day"

  • ||

    No, he's butthurt about being called out for the militant, fundamentalist, dogmatic asshole that he is.

  • Libertymike||

    You forget that there were several posters who disagreed with John and tarran and reminded them that this a liberty blog.

  • Enough About Palin||

    I being one of them. If I had wanted to reflect and emote about the children's lost lives via the Internet, I'd have looked for their memorial pages.

  • tarran||

    Adam Lanza couldn't have made it through bootcamp... anywhere.

    If your response to a person walking towards you in a corridor is to cower, a drill instructor would drive you catatonic.

  • WTF||

    "What is your major malfunction, numbnuts? Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?"

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Barry Zero couldn't have made it through boot camp, either.

  • tarran||

    Actually, he could.

    Stay quiet, don't fuck up too badly, do what you're told, when you're told to regardless of the pressure, and you're fine.

  • WTF||

    What!? He killed Osama bin Laden with his bare hands!!111!!!!

  • Jordan||

    AMERICA FUCK YEAH!

  • ||

    Something seems off about that. What could it be?

    Proximity.

  • nicole||

    Are drones flesh-piercing, fast-firing killing machines?

    Oh.

    Well, do they have a pistol grip and a barrel shroud? Thought not.

    Not to mention, they're for the collective.

  • ||

    I'm willing to sacrifice not killing Arab kids for the good of the collective. Are you?

  • Surly Chef||

    Thank god there aren't many Arabs in Afghanistan. You don't have to sacrifice shit!

  • ||

    Not Arab, you idiot. I mean Ay-rab. All kinds of Ay-rabs.

  • Surly Chef||

    Listen tone and inflection don't translate, when you don't translate them. Now I understand you mean people with the complexion of sand.

  • JW||

    This is about 2 murderous men. One of the monsters killed 20 small children in cold blood, the other killed hundreds of children, so many, in fact, that we may never know the true number.

    One killed himself in the end, the other won the Nobel Peace Prize.

    (It needs work, so feel free to jump in.)

  • BakedPenguin||

    Maybe more straightforward: 'Kill 20 kids at a Connecticut school, you're labelled a monster. Kill a couple hundred with drones, win the Nobel Peace Prize.'

  • Hugh Akston||

    To be fair, Obama hadn't killed anyone before he won the Nobel. They were just incredibly prescient.

  • Redmanfms||

    To be fair, Obama hadn't killed anyone before he won the Nobel.

    That we know of......

  • PapayaSF||

    Kill 20 kids at a Connecticut school, and you're a monster. Kill a couple hundred with drones, and you're a progressive hero fighting against the War on Women.

  • JW||

    That's the pithiness that it needed.

  • ZackTheHypochondriac||

    "'Kill 20 kids at a Connecticut school, you're labelled a monster. Kill a couple hundred with drones, win the Nobel Peace Prize.'" BP

    i like this one best, ill donate to the fund to get it on a billboard somewhere. just need the one, the media reporting on it will show the message to everyone else for free lol.

  • PapayaSF||

    How about: "Kill 20 kids at a Connecticut school, and you're a monster. Kill a couple hundred with drones, and you're a Nobel Peace Prize winner."

  • Surly Chef||

    Guns are fine as long as the right people die.

  • nicole||

    I think you meant, "as long as the right people shoot them."

  • Surly Chef||

    Two sides to the same evil coin.

  • JW||

    Something seems off about that. What could it be?

    Since posting that same sentiment on FB, there hasn't been a fucking peep about banning guns from the usual sources.

    I love the power of shame.

  • ||

    Well, shame is something you understand very well.

  • JW||

    Waitaminute, you told me that you liked it!

  • Restoras||

    Maybe they just unsubscribed to your feed.

  • JW||

    They can't quit me.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    On Sunday, I commented with a leftie friend in the room (look, I hate myself) that I do not think it is necessary to interrupt SNF to hear him speak.

    My friend was incredulous. How could I think football is more important? When I explained that I find his use of drones distasteful, my friend reiterated "It just bothers me that people think footall is more important"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    More important than what? Unasked for ritual elegies from our Pontifex Maximus?

  • ||

    No relation.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    It's the President!

  • ||

    "But a President...well...why not shoot a President?"

  • Restoras||

    If only Lincoln had armed himself.

  • tarran||

    Remember when the Bruins' goalie declined to meet with Obama?

    I had coworkers who hated Obama blow their stack because he had "disrespected the office of the President."

    It not a right/left thing, but because the Presidency has become daddy in people's eyes. The change happened so long ago that people can't remember an age where he wasn't daddy.

  • $park¥||

    It's as stupid as letting politicians keep their titles for life.

  • Scarcity||

    Ask him if he'd be pleased if His Highness interrupted a Portlandia marathon.

  • Andrew S.||

    I tried to bring that up amongst friends. I was told that I'm just paranoid. I'm not quite sure how.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Isn't it obvious? You watch too much Fox News.

  • Lyle||

    Not really. IEDs kill Marines.

  • Doctor Whom||

    The children were digging a hole, which could’ve been used to place a roadside bomb.

    That settles it, then. Besides, they're all terrorists; the only one of my liberal Facebook friends who even acknowledges the drone strikes told me so.

  • JW||

    SHOVELS OF MASS DECONSTRUCTION!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Nice.

  • Reformed Republican||

    The only reason kid might be digging a hole is to place a bomb. Everyone knows that.

  • tarran||

    That's how I can stop my kids from mining for gold in the back yard!

    "Don't dig in the ground, or the drones will get ya!"

  • Jordan||

    Why would you want to stop them? That's free child labor. Turn in your monocle.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, just get them to do their mining where you want a new garden or something.

  • tarran||

    That would be nice. Except they were mining where:
    1) No gold
    2) On path to shady spot where picnic table sits.

    The risk of broken ankles is 2.7 times higher in households where the government doesn't helfire kids with shovels.

  • fried wylie||

    Breaking an ankle is still preferable to stepping on legos.

  • Restoras||

    With bare feet...stepping on legos with shoes is not so bad.

  • some guy||

    Who steps on legos with shoes? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the lego?

  • Raston Bot||

    I better return that shovel I got my son for Christmas. Fucker loves digging in the dirt. I thought he was just being a little boy but according to TOP AUTHORITY in the govt he could be planting explosives.

  • Brett L||

    Holy shit. I just about stroked out. Because everyone knows red-blooded 'Murcan kids don't just fucking dig holes to dig! Fuck me. From age 3 til about 12, a shovel and a place to dig was a great day.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.

    You're not the only one.

  • Surly Chef||

    Yeah, I really shouldn't have read this or the linked article.

  • Restoras||

    At least when the pigs back home have the wrong address you get to see who's shooting at you before you die.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Don't fire 'till you see the whites of their eyes through a video monitor 10,000 miles away!

  • Paul.||

    Don't fire 'till you see the whites of their eyes diapers through a video monitor 10,000 miles away!

    Too soon?

  • Paul.||

    Can we please get back to talking about banning gun ownership in this country? We're bathed in violence here!

  • JW||

    What?! We're soaking in it?

  • Paul.||

    It's Palmolive!

  • ||

    h/t to db for the link

    That's The Summarizer*, Ed. Get it right or pay the price!

    *On NHK-1, The Summarizer is broadcast as Teenage Sigma 9 Apostrophe GO!, with subtitles.

  • The Summarizer||

    I like db.

  • Randian||

    Unless the missile was fired with recklessness, this is an unfortunate accident.

    One that could be prevented if we stopped bombing other countries, but an accident nonetheless.

  • Paul.||

    Who knew kids were in villages?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, how else are you going to raise them, silly?

  • fried wylie||

    Hillary Clinton?

  • fried wylie||

    refresh before posting *flog* refresh before posting *flog* ...

  • Randian||

    Who knew kids were in villages?

    By that logic, you could never engage any sort of target, because there might be children around.

  • JW||

    By that logic, you could never engage any sort of target, because there might be children around.

    Sounds like a good start. Might as well bring the troops home, then.

  • Randian||

    You're looking at this in a short-sighted way. I mean engage any target ever.

  • JW||

    Still looks good.

  • Randian||

    So you're a total pacifist, then? Even in self-defense?

  • JW||

    No and no.

    Short of invasion of the national borders or Hitler Jr., I don't see any legitimate need for projecting our military forces.

    Are you a wealthy Arab nation that has a troublesome neighbor? Best to get off your fattened asses and defend your sovereignty yourselves.

  • Randian||

    No and no.

    Then you would agree that it is OK to engage targets. And therefore OK to accidentally kill children, in certain contexts and circumstances.

    Now, you may say that this context and circumstance is not OK, but that does not make the individual killing "not an accident". It's still an accident.

  • Proprietist||

    Not really logical. One can support hunting down real terrorists in a precise fashion that minimizes or eliminates unacceptable civilian deaths. Careless targeting makes us no better than they are.

  • JW||

    Then you would agree that it is OK to engage targets. And therefore OK to accidentally kill children, in certain contexts and circumstances.

    I would agree that in all things involving humans, mistakes are inevitable. If you are attacked and defending yourself and happen to kill or harm a non-combatant, this is far more forgivable than while recklessly executing a pointless war for personal political gain.

    I don't think it's a sign of weakness to say that, as a moral imperative for humans, we should, at all costs, avoid killing those that don't need killin'.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Eggs omelets kids empire

  • Randian||

    I didn't say that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    One's an accident, Two huindred is unconscionable.

  • Randian||

    They aren't mutually exclusive. They can all be accidents on the part of the operators, and even classified as such, and we can still say "hey, we're having way too many accidents here, and that's unconscionable"

  • Paul.||

    I'd rather be having these accidents during Total War(tm), fully declared by congress that has the goal of unconditional surrender of the nation being attacked.

    Some might accuse me of splitting hairs, but alas, I'm no pacifist. What I object to is the killing of innocents and children with no metric defining victory. The suggestion of course being that we'll keep killing innocents and children until the right people are in charge and put a stop to this nonsense, not because there are any rules that say we're not supposed to be doing it this way.

  • Randian||

    Paul, you'll get no arguments from me on anything you said.

  • sarcasmic||

    The child had disappeared. Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.

    Better keep that latter part to yourself if you have any plans to climb the chain of command.

  • The Other Kevin||

    I would like to see a letter written from one of the drone strike parents to one of the Connecticut parents.

  • $park¥||

    Most likely the drone strike parents got taken out with the second missile.

  • Proprietist||

    Double Tap, Baby!

  • Raston Bot||

    I must be completely jaded b/c I find that article hilarious:

    He doesn't say as much about the targeted killing. He claims that during his two years as operations commander at Creech, he never saw any noncombatants die, and that the drones only fire at buildings when women and children are not in them.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    The use of the term "clinical war" makes him angry. It reminds him of the Vietnam veterans who accuse him of never having waded through the mud or smelled blood, and who say that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Describing his time as a drone pilot in Nevada, Colonel Matt Martin wrote in his book "Predator" that, "Sometimes I felt like God hurling thunderbolts from afar."

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    She rarely thought about what happened in the cockpit. But sometimes she would review the individual steps in her head, hoping to improve her performance.

    Or she would go shopping.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Andrew S.||

    So 20 the murder of 20 American children is a national tragedy. Which it is, for sure.

    The murder of 176 brown children doesn't merit mention by the vast majority of the media. When it is mentioned, most people shrug it off, because hey, they're brown, and not American, and who cares about them, right?

    So the ratio of importance of American children to Afghani children is over 9:1. What's the true ratio? How many children do our military have to kill in drone strikes before people start caring? Or is there even a number where that happens?

  • $park¥||

    If we haven't killed them all then we haven't killed enough. For further proof of this, see Cytotoxic below.

  • Cytotoxic||

    For further proof Sparky is a retard, see Sparky below.

  • JW||

    The murder of 176 brown children doesn't merit mention by the vast majority of the media. When it is mentioned, most people shrug it off, because hey, they're brown, and not American, and who cares about them, right?

    The more pressing and important question is "how many free ponies did we get today?"

  • wareagle||

    because if we don't kill them over there, well, they'll just grow up and try to kill us over here. You know that.

    How many children do our military have to kill in drone strikes before people start caring?
    The number is immaterial. The deaths only matter when a Repub is POTUS; when a Dem is in the Oval, the anti-war left goes on hiatus. Places like this remain lone outposts of consistency, and my isn't that working out well.

  • Randian||

    The murder of 176 brown children

    The color of their skin is immaterial.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It is now, anyway.

  • Paul.||

    Is "charred" a color?

    Ok I'm going to hell for that...

    Apologies to the thread.

  • wareagle||

    it is very material when you consider that the sponsors of the droning are the same people who cling to the race deck at every opportunity. Seems a bit ironic that the folks who preach diversity and inclusion are so willing to blow up ethnic minorities.

  • SugarFree||

    so willing to blow up ethnic minorities

    Are they ethnic minorities that can vote for them? Because, I think I've identified the problem...

  • wareagle||

    bug or feature, because most minorities that vote for them wind up supporting policies that do the opposite of help.

  • Randian||

    it is very material when you consider that the sponsors of the droning are the same people who cling to the race deck at every opportunity.

    #1 - that strategy doesn't work. Proggies don't care.

    #2 - it's beneath a libertarian to race-bait

    #3 - as soon as you stoop to their level, you're going to have to justify every policy within the prism of race. When a liberal throws back some nonsense like "the welfare system helps blacks!" you can't tell them to stop playing the race card, because you've got a beam in yer eye.

  • wareagle||

    H/R appears to challenge #2 on a daily basis but on a larger scale - not sure anything is beneath mention.

    you're right #1 doesn't work, but I enjoy that glazed look that follows its mention. It's the simply things in life.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    The color of their skin is immaterial.

    Oh come on Randian. You know what he meant.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Killing children in war =/= 'war on children'

    I see attaching 'War on _____' isn't just for the statists. It's for all those who wish to forward a dishonest narrative.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Which is why abortion would be the best comparison in shaming Obama's supporters re their selective outrage on the death of children.

  • $park¥||

    Oh look, another set-up for abortion. Surprise surprise.

  • SugarFree||

    Really dig your heels into that hobby horse.

  • sarcasmic||

    I see sarcasm is lost on military fellating conservatives.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Which military-fellating conservatives did you have in mind?

  • Libertymike||

    John and tarran.

  • Libertymike||

    and cytotoxic.

  • Cytotoxic||

    John and tarran

    Just wow.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Sarcasm? It's hard to know with peaceniks given just how pathologically dishonest they are.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is a difference between a "peacenik" (pacifist, all war is bad, under no circumstances) and someone who doesn't understand how killing Pakistani children keeps Americans safe.

    Could you explain how killing Pakistani children keeps Americans safe, por favor?

  • wareagle||

    the bigger divide is Red and Blue - Blue eagerly defends it when it side does it but is critical when the other side does. Red gives silent approval to Blue-sponsored strikes and supports its own. Surely you have noticed that the anti-war left seems to disband when a Dem is in the

  • wareagle||

    ...is in the White House.

  • sarcasmic||

    Red gives silent approval to Blue-sponsored strikes and supports its own.

    Part of being a conservative is never being critical of the military, ever.
    In the mind of a conservative, anything that the military does can be excused, without limits, including the deliberate targeting of women and children.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Targeting the Taliban/AQ keeps us safe(r) because they are too dead to hurt us as they want to. The dead children are an unfortunate collateral damage to that.

  • some guy||

    What if the dead children create more Taliban/AQ than the bomb killed?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Besides, now they'll never grow up to be ter'ists.

  • Andrew S.||

    From now on, I'm going to have to go under the assumption that you're just trolling constantly. Because it's too frightening to believe that you're for real.

  • Cytotoxic||

    How dare he think with brain instead of his emotions!

  • crazyfingers||

    Hey, at least Obama cares about American children! He cares so much that he is willing to consign hundreds of millions of them to a future of unfathomable debt.

  • John||

    We burned hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German children to death in World War II. Was that a war on children? What the hell is so special about drones? A bomb is a bomb.

    Reason would do better to concentrate on the things that actually are war crimes, like double tapping bomb sites in hopes of killing anyone trying to render aid (which I don't recall seeing them post on) than bringing out the same old bullshit about how death done collaterally is the same as death done by intentional targeting.

  • JW||

    Indifference to who you kill is a virtue in a leader.

  • $park¥||

    Someone ought to go tell the Sandy Hook parents that their kids are just collateral damage in the War on Tyranny.

  • Cytotoxic||

    ^RETARD^

  • $park¥||

    I'm glad you were able to come up with such a cunning rebuttal.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Cunning?

  • $park¥||

    Sorry, was that word to big for you?

  • Randian||

    It's that you didn't use it right, Sparky.

  • sarcasmic||

    Did you mean "cunting"?

  • $park¥||

    It's that you didn't use it right, Sparky.

    Do tell.

  • $park¥||

    That's what I thought. Some people can be real pieces of shit with their pedantry until they get proven wrong.

  • Randian||

    Sorry, but substituting your use of the word with the definitions still doesn't give your reply any more sense:

    1. "I'm glad you were able to come up with a rebuttal that displayed keen insight?" No, that doesn't work.

    2. "I'm glad you were able to come up with a prettily appealing rebuttal?" No.

    You used the word incorrectly.

  • $park¥||

    "I'm glad you were able to come up with a rebuttal that displayed keen insight?" No, that doesn't work.

    Say what now?

  • sarcasmic||

    Rule #1: Randian is always right.
    Rule #2: When Randian is wrong refer to Rule #1.

  • Randian||

    Rule #1: Randian is always right.
    Rule #2: When Randian is wrong refer to Rule #1

    It's good to know that the black eyes are starting to sink in. Now get back to the kitchen.

  • Randian||

    In the context of the conversation, the "keen insight" remark works not at all.

  • $park¥||

    In the context of the conversation, the "keen insight" remark works not at all.

    I'm ... I don't even ... Uh ...

    If I had just said "ZING!" would that have made any kind of sense to you? Please tell me that your intentional misunderstanding of human interaction is just an act to make you look all aloof.

  • sarcasmic||

    I got the joke. Randian is most definitely wrong. And obtuse.

    Time to refer to Rule #1.

  • Randian||

    I get the 'joke' - I understand the sarcasm. The word is still wrong. Think about it: insight into what, exactly?

  • $park¥||

    The word is still wrong. Think about it: insight into what, exactly?

    This is pretty rich coming for the guy who was calling John out this morning for not admitting he was wrong. Did you actually read the exchange? I'll substitute in the definition, as posted by you, to make it easy on you:

    $: Someone ought to go tell the Sandy Hook parents that their kids are just collateral damage in the War on Tyranny.
    C: ^RETARD^
    $: I'm glad you were able to come up with a rebuttal that displayed keen insight.

  • SugarFree||

    In the context of the conversation, the "keen insight" remark works not at all.

    It does if you assume--as I and I think most did--that Sparky was being sarcastic.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Cunning was just a strange word to use there. "Cutting" would have been better.

  • WTF||

    Is it as cunning as a fox what used to be Professor of Cunning at Oxford University but has moved on and is now working for the U.N. at the High Commission of International Cunning Planning?

  • SugarFree||

    Cunning

    This is why there are no female libertarians.

  • ||

    ^Winnar

  • some guy||

    This is why there are no female libertarians.

    I knew I read that somewhere...

  • Enough About Palin||

    It's the most cunning thing to ever happen since cunning rode into cunningtown.

  • Lyle||

    Preach it.

    Reason is on about the child killing because it wants to do away with defense spending. Reason wants the U.S. military to be small enough to where it can't respond to another 9/11 attack. If Reason had its way the Pentagon wouldn't have the capability to go hunting after a bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's what Reason wants.

    This is why libertarian political candidates are totally hopeless. They are imbeciles in defense and foreign policy.

  • mr simple||

    D-

  • SugarFree||

    It's a rather cruel parody of Cytotoxic.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's a lousy parody.

  • Lyle||

    You got something to say to me?

  • ||

    SugarFree, careful about taunting this babydicked loser. He'll totally come to your house and punch you in the face.

  • JW||

    You got something to say to me?

    Yeah, I do. Go ahead and step outside. I'll be there in a minute.

  • Lyle||

    Y'all still have no counterargument. Just like I thought.

  • crazyfingers||

    Don't worry guys, these wars will come to an end just as soon as the U.S. defeats "terrorism".

  • SugarFree||

    The War on Abstract Concepts has barely begun!

  • tarran||

    When I rise to power, it will be a War on Attrition!

  • $park¥||

    Fuck, that's gonna be a tough one to beat.

  • SugarFree||

    If only we had the will to wage a war on apathy.

  • $park¥||

    We did, but nobody really cared enough to keep fighting.

  • SugarFree||

    Whatever.

  • ||

    I'm going to fight the War on Hunger by ordering myself a sandwich.

  • SugarFree||

    You should get roasted abortion on abortion bread with abortion sauce. Abortion.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    With a side of circumcision.

  • $park¥||

    I could swear Epi mentioned once that penis clippings were his favorite side dish. Fired with some kind of dip, possibly placenta run-off.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • WTF||

  • ||

    That's what I ordered, but with extra abortion and oil and vinegar.

  • The Summarizer||

    I thought you preferred brined abortions packed in tins with oil.

  • WTF||

    Once we win the war on attrition, we can concentrate on the war on entropy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's just going to fall apart.

  • Ted S.||

  • Lyle||

    That's what they use to say about all the Native American wars too.

  • Janet||

    sounds like our enemies use children in their warfare and that is the problem. you can't reason with such types, but you can defeat them. the sooner the better, the less children that will grow up to be suicide bombs, not so grown up.

  • ||

    We need a new word. "Derp" just doesn't seem to cut it anymore.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement