I don’t know. But it would be pretty stupid to ask me if I think I know better than them if not for that reason given that was literally the context in which I said I knew better than people who are in favour of those things.
No, and if you weren’t incredibly fucking dense you’d realise from the context I wasn’t suggesting that. I was pointing out how much of a non sequitur the resident conspiracy theorist’s question/point was.
No, that wasn’t even remotely what I was suggesting. You’d have to be a complete and utter cretin to think that’s what I was saying.
My point, since you clearly can’t grasp it from context is that saying “look these Afghan kids died how can you know better than their Muslim parents” is a cretinous and incoherent sentiment. There is no inconsistency between, on the one hand, saying that I personally know better than Islamic extremists and, on the other, not endorsing every civilian casualty caused by American military intervention.
Just as you can say you know better than Hitler without having to defend the approach taken to bombing Dresden.
I agree with you.
My point is simply that the mere fact civilian casualties happen during war is not a reason why wars should never be fought. And we shouldn’t be drawing a moral equivalence between people who proactively seek to maximise civilian casualties (like ISIS) and those who at best actively seek to minimise civilian casualties and at worst are negligent as to the number of civilian casualties when pursuing military targets (the general conduct of NATO).