“Virtually every time the U.S. fires a missile from a drone and ends the lives of Muslims”

• This claim is appealing but not logical. We think were fighting the “Muslims” but in fact these could be random people just riding a bike by at that moment.
• The goverment puts all these people into a single class which we identify terrorists with in so we don’t think were doing anything bad.
• If its completely okay to kill “Muslims” could they just start bombing everyone who is a Muslim in the US would that be okay?

“the definition of “militant” is any human being whose life is extinguished when an American missile or bomb detonates”

• This claim is stating that lieteraly anyone is a militant this is completely effective and logical.
• The article is trying to show you who the Goverment is actually bombing with the targets. The article shows us the words they have made up to see less harmless.
• This claim connects with the audience letting them know they in fact are, a militant.

“Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes.”

• This is almost the same as the claim above. It further drills into our minds that this term is not only real, but it was expanded by our president himself.
• This is very effective because it tells us that the president considers us militants.
• If he killed everyone in the state of California would they be militants?

“all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants”

• The claim is stating everyone of military age in strike zones are combatants. These countries are known for using children as combatants; this gives them an excuse to kill almost everyone.
• The claim is effective to show us that everyone and anyone can be killed by a drone strike and not considered a civilian.

“people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.”

• This claim is effective because it’s saying that anyone in this area is a threat. They are stating that anyone who ever steps foot in that area ever again is “up to no good.”
• The claim is very effective because it just makes the authors point clearer than it already is.
• This has the same effect of driving through a bad neighborhood and getting arrested for merely being in the area.

“One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.”

• This author is stating that anyone even remotely around is guilty.  That’s like going into a shady neighborhood and arresting everyone in a block radius for drop charges, are those people guilty by association?
• This claim is very effective to the author saying that anyone even near the people is in the wrong.

“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,”

• This claim shows that anyone who is there is just considered a militant.
• They just assume that they are a militant so when they send a drone in to kill them they won’t get scrutinized for it.
• This claim is very effective because it shows that they do not even make sure they are actually in the wrong.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/