[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Those two things do not necessary correlate. Approving of drone attacks simply means they prefer that over combat I'd imagine. And unfortunately collateral damage does happen.....that is not to say citizens like it.LJS9502_basicAs I mentioned to you before, it's not collateral damage.Link..... We had this discussion before and I cited international statutes. You ignored it and moved on like you normally do but I'll post it again.
About the CT shooting, does anyone else find it most disturbing that...
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Link.....LJS9502_basicWe had this discussion before and I cited international statutes. You ignored it and moved on like you normally do but I'll post it again.You didn't post any substantive evidence to back up that statement you made...but by all means...pretend you did. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) OR, an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage e.g, bombing a home, civilian property, churches, funerals in order to neutralize a militant. (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. Feel free to pretend I didn't post this.
[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You didn't post any substantive evidence to back up that statement you made...but by all means...pretend you did.LJS9502_basicA crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) OR, an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage e.g, bombing a home, civilian property, churches, funerals in order to neutralize a militant. (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. Feel free to pretend I didn't post this. That does not prove any criminal activity occurred.....just as I thought.:lol: Launching attacks on civilian territory. A violation of the Geneva conventions.
[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'll ask again...link?LJS9502_basicUhh....(Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome statute and Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions? Research much? Hell, google much? Copy and Paste at all? You do know that is not a link nor does it state anything about what the US has or has not done. No you don't know that? Here's how it goes...if you make a claim that x happened then be prepared to show that x happened. Spouting Geneva Convention law is not the basis of my question and frankly is a waste of bandwidth since it's not what I asked. But you can continue to post it over and over if it makes you feel better. But in the end....it's not what I asked from you. So I'll take it you have nothing....as I expected. Have a nice evening.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report
A story summarizing a report conducted by both Stanford and NYU which reported the drone attacks on funerals and the rescuers. Now correlate that with the international statutes. Because you're lazy I'll provide the links to the Rome Statute and the Geneva conventions. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/ http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html I apologize for calling you lazy. I don't think you're lazy, I think you're dishonest and insincere. If you really wanted to know about any of this, all it takes is a google tab and some time. You were a debate champ or something?
You do know that is not a link nor does it state anything about what the US has or has not done. No you don't know that? Here's how it goes...if you make a claim that x happened then be prepared to show that x happened. Spouting Geneva Convention law is not the basis of my question and frankly is a waste of bandwidth since it's not what I asked. But you can continue to post it over and over if it makes you feel better. But in the end....it's not what I asked from you. So I'll take it you have nothing....as I expected. Have a nice evening.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="thebest31406"] Uhh....(Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome statute and Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions? Research much? Hell, google much? Copy and Paste at all?thebest31406
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report
A story summarizing a report conducted by both Stanford and NYU which reported the drone attacks on funerals and the rescuers. Now correlate that with the international statutes. Because you're lazy I'll provide the links to the Rome Statute and the Geneva conventions. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/ http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html I apologize for calling you lazy. I don't think you're lazy, I think you're dishonest and insincere. If you really wanted to know about any of this, all it takes is a google tab and some time. You were a debate champ or something?
So 24-35 % estimated in total? Doesn't seem to violate the Geneva Convention then. As far as debating goes....it is not up to me to provide your evidence. That solely rests with you.
[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]This was a single action by a crazy man.[QUOTE="Vaultboy-101"]
Here's one:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113410/US-soldier-kills-16-Afghan-civilians-deadly-shooting-rampage.html
kuraimen
Not the actions of the U.S. military.
Well it has happened several times. I this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings was not one individual but multiple and not one of them is in jail now...People go crazy during warfare. You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe only one person would fall victom to insanity.also proof that none of them have been delt with...
[QUOTE="vfibsux"][QUOTE="jamejame"]Do tell. One invovles a mentally insane man murdering children on domestic ground, the other involves a psychotic governement murdering all manner of men women and children overseas -- which is more disturbing to you? The guise of a free country under which we live that seems only to advocate such limited freedoms on our own soil while having it's way anywhere else it sees fit, or the occasional outburst from a madman?What is disturbing to me is we have American citizens like you who live off of this country while you spout this traitorous crap on the internet. Nothing you say is based on any proof whatsoever, it is pure crap. You either need to stop believing every anti-American piece of trash you are listening to and educate yourself or get the $%^& out of this country if you feel this way. Lol so criticising your own government over murdering innocent people oversees is anti-american now? Your kind is the most disturbing type of individuals. I bet nazi germany was proud of people like you. sigh, stupid people don't know the definition of murder.kuraimen
Well it has happened several times. I this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings was not one individual but multiple and not one of them is in jail now...People go crazy during warfare. You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe only one person would fall victom to insanity.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]This was a single action by a crazy man.
Not the actions of the U.S. military.
MakeMeaSammitch
also proof that none of them have been delt with...
It's in the wikipedia article. When the american army does stuff like this 90% of the time the perpetrators go free or spend like 1year in jail tops
Oh you're one of those guys who think we slaughter innocent civilians in the middle east.
Fool.
[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]People go crazy during warfare. You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe only one person would fall victom to insanity.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Well it has happened several times. I this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings was not one individual but multiple and not one of them is in jail now...kuraimen
also proof that none of them have been delt with...
It's in the wikipedia article. When the american army does stuff like this 90% of the time the perpetrators go free or spend like 1year in jail tops Wrong. The American Army does not do something like that...individuals do. Damn the misinformation you spew....
Go ahead and put words in my mouth, nowhere did I ever say that it was our goal. That doesn't change the fact that this kind of collateral damage happens where it could arguably be avoided, and when it does, regardless of it's avoidability, it is generally ignored. My point is that I find a government that can do this without a semblance of signs of a guilty conscience more disturbing than the actions of a madman. Our government is supposed to serve us, it is ultimately reflective of what the people allow it to be -- we cry over over domestic deaths yet those of innocents overseas are perceived as necessary evil if they're even known about, and brushed off like water off a duck's back. You don't find that the least bit disturbing?Oh you're one of those guys who think we slaughter innocent civilians in the middle east.
Fool.
GOGOGOGURT
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]People go crazy during warfare. You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe only one person would fall victom to insanity.It's in the wikipedia article. When the american army does stuff like this 90% of the time the perpetrators go free or spend like 1year in jail tops Wrong. The American Army does not do something like that...individuals do. Damn the misinformation you spew....also proof that none of them have been delt with...
LJS9502_basic
Yeah individuals do that and the army punishes with the equivalent of a slap on the wrist
[QUOTE="thebest31406"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You do know that is not a link nor does it state anything about what the US has or has not done. No you don't know that? Here's how it goes...if you make a claim that x happened then be prepared to show that x happened. Spouting Geneva Convention law is not the basis of my question and frankly is a waste of bandwidth since it's not what I asked. But you can continue to post it over and over if it makes you feel better. But in the end....it's not what I asked from you. So I'll take it you have nothing....as I expected. Have a nice evening.LJS9502_basic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report
A story summarizing a report conducted by both Stanford and NYU which reported the drone attacks on funerals and the rescuers. Now correlate that with the international statutes. Because you're lazy I'll provide the links to the Rome Statute and the Geneva conventions. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/ http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html I apologize for calling you lazy. I don't think you're lazy, I think you're dishonest and insincere. If you really wanted to know about any of this, all it takes is a google tab and some time. You were a debate champ or something?
So 24-35 % estimated in total? Doesn't seem to violate the Geneva Convention then. As far as debating goes....it is not up to me to provide your evidence. That solely rests with you. It's about the areas where they target. Suburban areas, churches, funerals, etc.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So 24-35 % estimated in total? Doesn't seem to violate the Geneva Convention then. As far as debating goes....it is not up to me to provide your evidence. That solely rests with you. It's about the areas where they target. Suburban areas, churches, funerals, etc. Do I have to ask again?[QUOTE="thebest31406"]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/drone-attacks-pakistan-counterproductive-report
A story summarizing a report conducted by both Stanford and NYU which reported the drone attacks on funerals and the rescuers. Now correlate that with the international statutes. Because you're lazy I'll provide the links to the Rome Statute and the Geneva conventions. http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/ http://www.un.org/law/icc/index.html I apologize for calling you lazy. I don't think you're lazy, I think you're dishonest and insincere. If you really wanted to know about any of this, all it takes is a google tab and some time. You were a debate champ or something?
thebest31406
[QUOTE="vfibsux"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lol so criticising your own government over murdering innocent people oversees is anti-american now? Your kind is the most disturbing type of individuals. I bet nazi germany was proud of people like you. kuraimenPathetic @#$hats like you live off of this country while people like me risk their lives to make sure those who want to kill you fight us overseas rather than here. People like you throw the word Nazi around as if you would have stood up to them, no sir people like ME stood up to them. You would not have had the spine, you would have been crying whenever we bombed Berlin. If we Americans like you back in WW2 we would have lost the war. Now, if you read hi statements again he is not merely criticizing our government. Saying we are psychotic murderers killing anything that moves? That is pretty much what he is saying. It is a load of lies, period. You bet your @#$ I will call anyone like him a traitor. People like you who sit back and enjoy your safety and freedoms have no clue what goes on out in the real world. Yeah well i hace no sympathy for an army that is used to invade countries and murder innocent people around the worldExactly my thoughts. Maybe our politics are too egalitarian for the average American.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]People go crazy during warfare. You'd have to be pretty stupid to believe only one person would fall victom to insanity.It's in the wikipedia article. When the american army does stuff like this 90% of the time the perpetrators go free or spend like 1year in jail tops Wrong. The American Army does not do something like that...individuals do. Damn the misinformation you spew....He just hates the U.S. you'll notice the pattern in every U.S. topic no matter how positive.also proof that none of them have been delt with...
LJS9502_basic
Also, I need a source, not wikipedia.
[QUOTE="vfibsux"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lol so criticising your own government over murdering innocent people oversees is anti-american now? Your kind is the most disturbing type of individuals. I bet nazi germany was proud of people like you. kuraimenPathetic @#$hats like you live off of this country while people like me risk their lives to make sure those who want to kill you fight us overseas rather than here. People like you throw the word Nazi around as if you would have stood up to them, no sir people like ME stood up to them. You would not have had the spine, you would have been crying whenever we bombed Berlin. If we Americans like you back in WW2 we would have lost the war. Now, if you read hi statements again he is not merely criticizing our government. Saying we are psychotic murderers killing anything that moves? That is pretty much what he is saying. It is a load of lies, period. You bet your @#$ I will call anyone like him a traitor. People like you who sit back and enjoy your safety and freedoms have no clue what goes on out in the real world. Yeah well i hace no sympathy for an army that is used to invade countries and murder innocent people around the world
Your ignorance is painful. I miss the great generation.
Wrong. The American Army does not do something like that...individuals do. Damn the misinformation you spew....He just hates the U.S. you'll notice the pattern in every U.S. topic no matter how positive.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] It's in the wikipedia article. When the american army does stuff like this 90% of the time the perpetrators go free or spend like 1year in jail tops MakeMeaSammitch
Also, I need a source, not wikipedia.
Does a mother who finds out her son is on crystal meth hateful for putting him in rehab? I love my country, which is why I'm concerned over the moral grounds on which we operate. It is not hateful to be critical.Wrong. The American Army does not do something like that...individuals do. Damn the misinformation you spew....[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] It's in the wikipedia article. When the american army does stuff like this 90% of the time the perpetrators go free or spend like 1year in jail tops kuraimen
Yeah individuals do that and the army punishes with the equivalent of a slap on the wrist
That's actually false....the UCMJ.....Article 118Yeah well i hace no sympathy for an army that is used to invade countries and murder innocent people around the world[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="vfibsux"] Pathetic @#$hats like you live off of this country while people like me risk their lives to make sure those who want to kill you fight us overseas rather than here. People like you throw the word Nazi around as if you would have stood up to them, no sir people like ME stood up to them. You would not have had the spine, you would have been crying whenever we bombed Berlin. If we Americans like you back in WW2 we would have lost the war. Now, if you read hi statements again he is not merely criticizing our government. Saying we are psychotic murderers killing anything that moves? That is pretty much what he is saying. It is a load of lies, period. You bet your @#$ I will call anyone like him a traitor. People like you who sit back and enjoy your safety and freedoms have no clue what goes on out in the real world. GOGOGOGURT
Your ignorance is painful. I miss the great generation.
Yours is the most ironic post I've ever seen[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Wrong. The American Army does not do something like that...individuals do. Damn the misinformation you spew....LJS9502_basic
Yeah individuals do that and the army punishes with the equivalent of a slap on the wrist
That's actually false....the UCMJ.....Article 118 Yeah words are empty if they're not accompanied by actionsGo ahead and put words in my mouth, nowhere did I ever say that it was our goal. That doesn't change the fact that this kind of collateral damage happens where it could arguably be avoided, and when it does, regardless of it's avoidability, it is generally ignored. My point is that I find a government that can do this without a semblance of signs of a guilty conscience more disturbing than the actions of a madman. Our government is supposed to serve us, it is ultimately reflective of what the people allow it to be -- we cry over over domestic deaths yet those of innocents overseas are perceived as necessary evil if they're even known about, and brushed off like water off a duck's back. You don't find that the least bit disturbing?[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]
Oh you're one of those guys who think we slaughter innocent civilians in the middle east.
Fool.
jamejame
Look, I find both equally disturbing that people are killed in both situations. But the taliban and jihadist loonies over there kill more of their own people than we do of thiers. In fact, it's stunning we haven't caused even more civilian casualties. It's the price of war. But I am not condoning this war. I think we have no reason to be there anymore, it's a waste of money and lives. And the reason why the media reports on it is because they already have tons of times. It's just not obvious anymore.
It's truly amazing that america has such a compassionate army. We go out of our way to preserve freedom and to avoid the slaughter of innocents.
Don't believe me? Russia wasn't half as kind when they invaded. In fact, they went out of their way to KILL INNOCENTS. We go out of our way to do the opposite. We are one of the few militaries that do that.
[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Yeah well i hace no sympathy for an army that is used to invade countries and murder innocent people around the worldkuraimen
Your ignorance is painful. I miss the great generation.
Yours is the most ironic post I've ever seenYou don't see many psts then.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]That's actually false....the UCMJ.....Article 118 Yeah words are empty if they're not accompanied by actionsBecause someone is not convicted or sentenced the way you desire does not mean the UCMJ is not strict. It's much stricter than civil courts.Yeah individuals do that and the army punishes with the equivalent of a slap on the wrist
kuraimen
[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So 24-35 % estimated in total? Doesn't seem to violate the Geneva Convention then. As far as debating goes....it is not up to me to provide your evidence. That solely rests with you.LJS9502_basicIt's about the areas where they target. Suburban areas, churches, funerals, etc. Do I have to ask again? Maybe I'm just confused. Link to the statute or the civilian areas targeted?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="thebest31406"] It's about the areas where they target. Suburban areas, churches, funerals, etc. thebest31406Do I have to ask again? Maybe I'm just confused. Link to the statute or the civilian areas targeted?Link to proof the the US deliberately attacked civilian areas and not areas with targets
Go ahead and put words in my mouth, nowhere did I ever say that it was our goal. That doesn't change the fact that this kind of collateral damage happens where it could arguably be avoided, and when it does, regardless of it's avoidability, it is generally ignored. My point is that I find a government that can do this without a semblance of signs of a guilty conscience more disturbing than the actions of a madman. Our government is supposed to serve us, it is ultimately reflective of what the people allow it to be -- we cry over over domestic deaths yet those of innocents overseas are perceived as necessary evil if they're even known about, and brushed off like water off a duck's back. You don't find that the least bit disturbing?[QUOTE="jamejame"]
[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]
Oh you're one of those guys who think we slaughter innocent civilians in the middle east.
Fool.
GOGOGOGURT
Look, I find both equally disturbing that people are killed in both situations. But the taliban and jihadist loonies over there kill more of their own people than we do of thiers. In fact, it's stunning we haven't caused even more civilian casualties. It's the price of war. But I am not condoning this war. I think we have no reason to be there anymore, it's a waste of money and lives. And the reason why the media reports on it is because they already have tons of times. It's just not obvious anymore.
It's truly amazing that america has such a compassionate army. We go out of our way to preserve freedom and to avoid the slaughter of innocents.
Don't believe me? Russia wasn't half as kind when they invaded. In fact, they went out of their way to KILL INNOCENTS. We go out of our way to do the opposite. We are one of the few militaries that do that.
Well I pretty much agree with you. I'm in no way saying we're the most violent army, but the fact that we're stationed overseas for what can amount to no logical reason at all is where I derive my concern and disgust. I see no reason for us to be over there either -- we're not supposed to be the bloody world police. We have military complexes stationed in 108 countries worldwide, we need to focus on national defense (yes I know many argue offense is defense, in almost all current cases anyone with a brain would disagree with our current employment of the saying), not policing foreign grounds. Sounds like we're on the same page to me.[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]
[QUOTE="jamejame"]Go ahead and put words in my mouth, nowhere did I ever say that it was our goal. That doesn't change the fact that this kind of collateral damage happens where it could arguably be avoided, and when it does, regardless of it's avoidability, it is generally ignored. My point is that I find a government that can do this without a semblance of signs of a guilty conscience more disturbing than the actions of a madman. Our government is supposed to serve us, it is ultimately reflective of what the people allow it to be -- we cry over over domestic deaths yet those of innocents overseas are perceived as necessary evil if they're even known about, and brushed off like water off a duck's back. You don't find that the least bit disturbing?
jamejame
Look, I find both equally disturbing that people are killed in both situations. But the taliban and jihadist loonies over there kill more of their own people than we do of thiers. In fact, it's stunning we haven't caused even more civilian casualties. It's the price of war. But I am not condoning this war. I think we have no reason to be there anymore, it's a waste of money and lives. And the reason why the media reports on it is because they already have tons of times. It's just not obvious anymore.
It's truly amazing that america has such a compassionate army. We go out of our way to preserve freedom and to avoid the slaughter of innocents.
Don't believe me? Russia wasn't half as kind when they invaded. In fact, they went out of their way to KILL INNOCENTS. We go out of our way to do the opposite. We are one of the few militaries that do that.
Well I pretty much agree with you. I'm in no way saying we're the most violent army, but the fact that we're stationed overseas for what can amount to no logical reason at all is where I derive my concern and disgust. I see no reason for us to be over there either -- we're not supposed to be the bloody world police. We have military complexes stationed in 108 countries worldwide, we need to focus on national defense (yes I know many argue offense is defense, in almost all current cases anyone with a brain would disagree with our current employment of the saying), not policing foreign grounds. Sounds like we're on the same page to me. While I think we should now leave Afghanistan the reason we were there was not to police the world but to get those that attacked the country. Completely different scenario there champ.[QUOTE="GOGOGOGURT"]
[QUOTE="jamejame"]Go ahead and put words in my mouth, nowhere did I ever say that it was our goal. That doesn't change the fact that this kind of collateral damage happens where it could arguably be avoided, and when it does, regardless of it's avoidability, it is generally ignored. My point is that I find a government that can do this without a semblance of signs of a guilty conscience more disturbing than the actions of a madman. Our government is supposed to serve us, it is ultimately reflective of what the people allow it to be -- we cry over over domestic deaths yet those of innocents overseas are perceived as necessary evil if they're even known about, and brushed off like water off a duck's back. You don't find that the least bit disturbing?
jamejame
Look, I find both equally disturbing that people are killed in both situations. But the taliban and jihadist loonies over there kill more of their own people than we do of thiers. In fact, it's stunning we haven't caused even more civilian casualties. It's the price of war. But I am not condoning this war. I think we have no reason to be there anymore, it's a waste of money and lives. And the reason why the media reports on it is because they already have tons of times. It's just not obvious anymore.
It's truly amazing that america has such a compassionate army. We go out of our way to preserve freedom and to avoid the slaughter of innocents.
Don't believe me? Russia wasn't half as kind when they invaded. In fact, they went out of their way to KILL INNOCENTS. We go out of our way to do the opposite. We are one of the few militaries that do that.
Well I pretty much agree with you. I'm in no way saying we're the most violent army, but the fact that we're stationed overseas for what can amount to no logical reason at all is where I derive my concern and disgust. I see no reason for us to be over there either -- we're not supposed to be the bloody world police. We have military complexes stationed in 108 countries worldwide, we need to focus on national defense (yes I know many argue offense is defense, in almost all current cases anyone with a brain would disagree with our current employment of the saying), not policing foreign grounds. Sounds like we're on the same page to me.Touche'
sorry for the misunderstanding.
[QUOTE="thebest31406"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Link to proof the the US deliberately attacked civilian areas and not areas with targetsLJS9502_basicThe ongoing Stanford and NYU report on the drone strikes in Pakistan http://livingunderdrones.org/report/ "Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning." Even if the US were gunning specific targets and I believe they are, they're doing so in civilian territories, which makes it a crime. I'll leave this quote from your link.... It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because because....?
White American kids are more important than brown foreign muslims. LonelynightAny country is more invested in what happens in country. :roll:
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Because someone is not convicted or sentenced the way you desire does not mean the UCMJ is not strict. It's much stricter than civil courts. LJS9502_basicLol how many people have been convicted to death in civil courts? Now compare it to military courts I think the last one was in the 70 s or 80 s. Educate yourself Death? Well now I'm against the death penalty. I'm glad it isn't happening. Though I can't take someone seriously the decries death while advocating it. Where am I advocating it? I was just debunking your ridiculous assertion that military courts are more strict than civilian ones when in practice they have been far from it
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment