Edit for the haters: go ask someone tomorrow how much a “score” is. Most people would have to look it up, which makes it inappropriate for a headline where “hundreds” is more appropriate.
Huh? Ratios of 300 innocents per 1 terrorists killed are now the norm and we are definitely not hearing more about. It gets buried by the next “accident” where by “accident” destroy a hospital/school/refugee camp full of people
Let’s take it to an extreme. By this logic, you’d be okay with killing everyone on earth to rescue your child. This includes me and my children. This is insane.
To answer directly I wouldn’t be okay with the military killing hundreds of civilians to save anyone of my family, myself included. Not sure where my number is but it’s at least an order of magnitude lower.
Literally hundreds of civilians killed to rescue 4 hostages. I don’t know what happened but I can guarantee we will be hearing more about it.
Not a huge fan of the title but this is breaking news and I think the AP can be trusted to at least get the basics right.
I don’t see a problem with the title. That’s literally what happened. It makes no judgments.
Why are we still using the word “scores”
Edit for the haters: go ask someone tomorrow how much a “score” is. Most people would have to look it up, which makes it inappropriate for a headline where “hundreds” is more appropriate.
Because “dozens” is less than “scores?”
12 < 20.
What would be better?
Maybe hundreds?
Scores is such an 1800s word. It’s simply not used in today’s vernacular, and I’m not sure why you’re defending it.
I wasn’t defending anything. I literally asked what would be better.
Apparently asking what would be better was bad.
Why not
I don’t know, maybe for the reasons I already mentioned
Huh? Ratios of 300 innocents per 1 terrorists killed are now the norm and we are definitely not hearing more about. It gets buried by the next “accident” where by “accident” destroy a hospital/school/refugee camp full of people
How many people would you be willing to let the military kill to rescue your child who had been taken hostage?
My answer is “anyone who gets in the way”
Let’s take it to an extreme. By this logic, you’d be okay with killing everyone on earth to rescue your child. This includes me and my children. This is insane.
To answer directly I wouldn’t be okay with the military killing hundreds of civilians to save anyone of my family, myself included. Not sure where my number is but it’s at least an order of magnitude lower.
I don’t see that as insane at all. Why should I put anyone else’s lives above my own children?