I suspect lucian1900 was being sarcastic. At least, that's how I read it. I'm not quite sure how anyone could make that much of a stretch with a straight face.
Lets hypothetically provide the full mobile phone records of US army personal located in Yemen, and lets count the bodies. Do you think a conventional bomb will result in few'er dead people? How many innocent friends and family would die?
I saw that. Curiously, someone also downvoted you for your observation. I guess they're also touchy. ;)
I admit I was having a little tongue-in-cheek fun. It's plausible that I'm wrong (and likely); perhaps lucian1900 was genuinely stating an honest opinion. If so, that's fine. Everyone's entitled to such things.
I guess what bothers me the most is how arguments on the Internet quickly escalate to arguments from extremes. Suggesting simple eavesdropping (even if it can't be helped, some people are loud) is committing an act of violence is so absurd, it almost hurts me to even entertain it. Yet look how little time it took to reach that conclusion.
I suppose that's what I get for being optimistic. Instead of rational debate, you have extremist, absurd language arguing from a stance no reasonable person would believe. Hence, I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt, believing that their motives were mostly humor and sarcasm. I have my doubts, especially since the argument itself seems so prevalent and so many other people in this thread are arguing the same thing.
Maybe I need to go back to bed. It's almost like a live play from the theater of the absurd.
