• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What a shock: Hollywood pushing back at "The Sniper"

I'm talking about during war. I am not too worried about using drones to target confirmed terrorists either, but it should be as selective as possible. There will be casualties/accidents, but if we want to fight terrorism, then that's the cost of doing business.
How about if "confirmed" terrorist is US Citizen? Does he forfeit his 5th amendment rights?
 
How about if "confirmed" terrorist is US Citizen? Does he forfeit his 5th amendment rights?

If he's in Yemen training with Al-Qaeda? Yep. Tough shirt. As long as there's enough evidence, no problem with it whatsoever.
 
There's not much more to explain: War is War. My heart bleeds with the best of 'em but I don't get into the whole morality play when it comes to messiness of it all.

War's a dirty business.
 
Pretty harsh critique on Vox. Major spoiler alerts, but this part can be shared:

"Because Kyle is always right, any limits on his use of violence would, by definition, leave American soldiers in danger. That's something only a naive sheep could want.

But pretending that heroic sheepdog warriors never accidentally kill civilians is a dangerous lie about the true nature of combat. In the real world, even well-intentioned soldiers do sometimes kill innocent people, because that is how war works.

Pretending otherwise is an insult to the many American veterans who have to spend the rest of their lives grappling with their actions during the Iraq War, and to the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been killed since the conflict began. And it's also dangerous, because it tells Americans not to worry about the harm our wars may do to civilians, who are probably all terrorists anyway. It's bad enough to hide that truth behind euphemisms like "collateral damage," but much worse to write it out of the story completely."
 
Pretty harsh critique on Vox. Major spoiler alerts, but this part can be shared:

"Because Kyle is always right, any limits on his use of violence would, by definition, leave American soldiers in danger. That's something only a naive sheep could want.

But pretending that heroic sheepdog warriors never accidentally kill civilians is a dangerous lie about the true nature of combat. In the real world, even well-intentioned soldiers do sometimes kill innocent people, because that is how war works.

Pretending otherwise is an insult to the many American veterans who have to spend the rest of their lives grappling with their actions during the Iraq War, and to the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been killed since the conflict began. And it's also dangerous, because it tells Americans not to worry about the harm our wars may do to civilians, who are probably all terrorists anyway. It's bad enough to hide that truth behind euphemisms like "collateral damage," but much worse to write it out of the story completely."

I'm sure most Americans are as stupid as this woman would like us to believe.
 
I'm sure most Americans are as stupid as this woman would like us to believe.

Honestly. What a load of shirt that article is. While we might not experience it as directly as many other nations, I would bet most Americans realize that there is "collateral damage" in war. Always has been, but hopefully technology is making it easier to avoid. Who the fork is pretending that civilians are never killed in war zones?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top