It's clearly evident that you are lacking in comprehension/analysis and your objectivity is practically non-existent. I mean, I tried pre. Tinagalog ko na yung mga punto ko in the hopes of furthering this discussion pero wala eh. They seem to go way over your head and you just end up regurgitating the same irrelevant arguments. At this point, engaging you would be an exercise in futility. So what I'm gonna do instead is do something like a closing argument. Now, I don't expect you to comprehend this any better than my previous posts; this is just to clear my head and attempt to polish my points for those genuinely trying to make sense of the matter.
1. Again, you asked for a rebuttal so I gave you a couple. But instead of dissecting and analyzing the links I presented, you went defensive and used smoke and mirrors. I mean, you could have at least offered some sort of counter argument to at least mitigate the tone of my rebuttals. Just goes to show how feeble your stand in the matter is in the first place.
2. It was meant to induce thought (Which you clearly lack). Instead, you used a strawman argument just so you could have a semblance of a point. Aso yung pinaguusapan out of the blue pinasok mo yung airstrike. And then you had to double down and claim na pinagkukumpara ko ung airstrike sa aso when I never even mentioned anything close to an airstrike. LOL SAD! Just so you know, the message I was trying to impart is this: lahat nang bagay may pros and cons. May good side and may bad side. You can't just focus on one part then judge its entirety.
3 & 4. It actually connects with #2. Walang nag cclaim saamin na walang downside ang mga airstrikes. Na it's all good and wala siyang adverse na effect. Actually, if you browse through this thread eh iisang tao lang yung nag "downplay" sa collateral damages calling it a non-issue and that's you. Again, to reiterate, alam namin yung disadvantages ng airstrikes, pero ung mga advantages na ibinibigay niya are far greater. And as a couple of people have already pointed out in this thread, kung mas mataas yung risk vs reward of conducting an air strike they simply abort. Basically, bakit pagdating sa mga airstrikes nakatutok ka lang sa mga negative effects niya and bakit hindi mo kinokonsidera yung mga advantages na ibinibigay niya?
5. Hahaha! Natatawa talaga ako how you base your arguments from your own conjectures instead of simply comprehending things and yet you still fail at it.
And yung scenario lang ang binigay kong example of what possible thing to do other than airstrike just rebutting that airstrike is not the only option from that angle. Malinaw na?
Eto mismo yung ibig kong sabihin. Instead na airstrike yung alternative option mo is hayaang paputukan yung mga tropa natin dahil hindi naman unli yung mga bala nang mga rebelde. Haha! Anong nangyari dun sa "good luck to the police while they're being targeted in the head and in the heart" argument mo? Literal na na good luck sana nga hindi ka matamaan?
Last dig pre: Napansin mo ba na in this thread, almost all posts disagree with your arguments? And nobody seems to share your sentiments? Reminds of that one HIMYM quote: "If you can't spot the crazy person in the bus, it's you."
IF you want to be pedantic about it, then change holdap to carnap/kidnap/rape/murder/drugs and any other crime. It was just an example.
Still wouldn't change the fact that they're liable to being punished by our existing laws.