Originally Posted by Taco John
You're damned straight it's an emotional argument. It ****ing hurts my heart to see those dead kids and know that my neighbors did that. It makes me reflect on my own kids, and the futures I hold in my heart for them, and how heartbreaking it must be for a father to hold his limp, dead son because some coward in Northern California is more concerned about doing what's safe than doing what's right.
What if this was your daughter disfigured for merely being at the wrong place at the wrong time?
That's an innocent girl you're looking at. You call this justice? Where is her justice? Who makes her right again?
No one likes killing kids. You need to place the blame where it belongs...If everyone who attacks us then shields their bases with children, we could never strike them back?
There is a reason that these things are against the geneva coventions for warfare....(hiding amongst civilians, quartering in civilian homes, storing ammo / weapons in civilian areas etc...)
You are totally confused and letting your emotions cloud your reason. NO ONE is arguing that we should target children. That is a total straw-man argument on your part and a complete failure of logic.
You still have yet to answer the one basic question that would address the issue:
Can you please name another method of attack that would allow us to strike targets, with less risk to US lives as well as less collateral risk? Can you?
If not, don't you understand that this means we are already doing the best we can?