[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Obviously we're not talking about children in a military base, or weapons manufacturing factory. But you know that already. Children aren't in the mix, the terrorists are. You know that too. You're completely dismissing the point.His link said the attacks were on MILITARY targets. So obviously the children were in the wrong place....:| Even a school or a hospital can be deemed a "military target" if it is suspected as being a terrorist base.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Military targets....why are children being mixed in with military targets?LJS9502_basic
OK, so UAVs have killed people in Pakistan on the war on terror
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="mems_1224"]its a biased question so its dumb. of course he would care if his family died. you'd care if your family died even if the target was hitler so its a dumb question It's not really a dumb question if you think about it. Innocent people are killed in counter-terrorism operation. Their friends and family feel grief and possibly anger, anger which is somewhat likely to cause them to hate the people who killed the people they care for. If they have enough hate they may want to attack those who they feel are responsible (in this case the USA) and so the next generation of terrorists are born. In the end it all seems a bit counter productive.people will hate and want to attack the US regardless. we dont need to kill someone's family for them to hate us[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"] No it's not.Crunchy_Nuts
[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"][QUOTE="mems_1224"]its a biased question so its dumb. of course he would care if his family died. you'd care if your family died even if the target was hitler so its a dumb questionIt's not really a dumb question if you think about it. Innocent people are killed in counter-terrorism operation. Their friends and family feel grief and possibly anger, anger which is somewhat likely to cause them to hate the people who killed the people they care for. If they have enough hate they may want to attack those who they feel are responsible (in this case the USA) and so the next generation of terrorists are born. In the end it all seems a bit counter productive.people will hate and want to attack the US regardless. we dont need to kill someone's family for them to hate us So the best thing to do is give them EVEN MORE reason to hate the US? Kind of goes against the whole "hearts and minds" thing.mems_1224
[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Obviously we're not talking about children in a military base, or weapons manufacturing factory. But you know that already. Children aren't in the mix, the terrorists are. You know that too. You're completely dismissing the point.His link said the attacks were on MILITARY targets. So obviously the children were in the wrong place....:|Alleged military targets containing low ranking militants. It doesn't realy sound like civilians are running around hiding with terrortists, more like there are terrorists in the general populace and American drones are attacking them knowing civilians will get killed. Again, they aren't a nationalist army, they aren't a defernse force, they are more akin to a gang. They wouldn't bomb an American neighbourhood to find and kill dangerous drug cartel leaders or other big gang members. And why? Because as long as it's not on American soil who cares if they get a little dirty, right? "It's war" is always the excuse.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Military targets....why are children being mixed in with military targets?LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Obviously we're not talking about children in a military base, or weapons manufacturing factory. But you know that already. Children aren't in the mix, the terrorists are. You know that too. You're completely dismissing the point.His link said the attacks were on MILITARY targets. So obviously the children were in the wrong place....:| Even a school or a hospital can be deemed a "military target" if it is suspected as being a terrorist base.Then why no outrage over the terrorists for making a base amongst civilians. Would that NOT be a double standard?Crunchy_Nuts
people will hate and want to attack the US regardless. we dont need to kill someone's family for them to hate us So the best thing to do is give them EVEN MORE reason to hate the US? Kind of goes against the whole "hearts and minds" thing. yup that is exactly what i said :|[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"] It's not really a dumb question if you think about it. Innocent people are killed in counter-terrorism operation. Their friends and family feel grief and possibly anger, anger which is somewhat likely to cause them to hate the people who killed the people they care for. If they have enough hate they may want to attack those who they feel are responsible (in this case the USA) and so the next generation of terrorists are born. In the end it all seems a bit counter productive.Crunchy_Nuts
His link said the attacks were on MILITARY targets. So obviously the children were in the wrong place....:|Alleged military targets containing low ranking militants. It doesn't realy sound like civilians are running around hiding with terrortists, more like there are terrorists in the general populace and American drones are attacking them knowing civilians will get killed. Again, they aren't a nationalist army, they aren't a defernse force, they are more akin to a gang. They wouldn't bomb an American neighbourhood to find and kill dangerous drug cartel leaders or other big gang members. And why? Because as long as it's not on American soil who cares if they get a little dirty, right? "It's war" is always the excuse.Alleged? Almost every single one of those deaths was a confirmed terrorist.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Obviously we're not talking about children in a military base, or weapons manufacturing factory. But you know that already. Children aren't in the mix, the terrorists are. You know that too. You're completely dismissing the point.
DigitalExile
His link said the attacks were on MILITARY targets. So obviously the children were in the wrong place....:|Alleged military targets containing low ranking militants. It doesn't realy sound like civilians are running around hiding with terrortists, more like there are terrorists in the general populace and American drones are attacking them knowing civilians will get killed. Again, they aren't a nationalist army, they aren't a defernse force, they are more akin to a gang. They wouldn't bomb an American neighbourhood to find and kill dangerous drug cartel leaders or other big gang members. And why? Because as long as it's not on American soil who cares if they get a little dirty, right? "It's war" is always the excuse.well they're sworn to protect american lives. just like pakistan is sworn to protect the lives of its citizens. cant do that when you're protecting terrorists[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Obviously we're not talking about children in a military base, or weapons manufacturing factory. But you know that already. Children aren't in the mix, the terrorists are. You know that too. You're completely dismissing the point.
DigitalExile
Alleged military targets containing low ranking militants. It doesn't realy sound like civilians are running around hiding with terrortists, more like there are terrorists in the general populace and American drones are attacking them knowing civilians will get killed. Again, they aren't a nationalist army, they aren't a defernse force, they are more akin to a gang. They wouldn't bomb an American neighbourhood to find and kill dangerous drug cartel leaders or other big gang members. And why? Because as long as it's not on American soil who cares if they get a little dirty, right? "It's war" is always the excuse.Alleged? Almost every single one of those deaths was a confirmed terrorist.The article said alleged. It was a vague article anyway. What does "low ranking militant" even mean? Some guy given a gun or someone who plans on blowing up a bus somewhere?[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]His link said the attacks were on MILITARY targets. So obviously the children were in the wrong place....:|LJS9502_basic
Even a school or a hospital can be deemed a "military target" if it is suspected as being a terrorist base.Then why no outrage over the terrorists for making a base amongst civilians. Would that NOT be a double standard? Whether or not these buildings are actually used as terrorist bases is irrelevant as long as there is suspicion. Even if the buildings were being used by terrorists do you really think that ordinary civilians there would know what's happening behind every door? to them it's just a school.[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]His link said the attacks were on MILITARY targets. So obviously the children were in the wrong place....:|LJS9502_basic
Weren't people on the streets of Pakistan like celebrating when 9/11 happened? I recall watching something like that on the news back in the day. I don't think it's good that innocent people are dying and I'm not saying their deaths are deserved or anything but war is war and that's what happens. 9/11 has to do with the terrorist attacks on new york, remembering those people, mourning them etc.
It has nothing to do with any war, or causalities in war. It's just become a day of remembrance.
well they're sworn to protect american lives. just like pakistan is sworn to protect the lives of its citizens. cant do that when you're protecting terrorists mems_1224Right, and all i'm hearing is "If they're not American who cares" which is the whole point of this argument from the beginning. America gets up in a rage when its own citizens die but no ones gives a flying **** when you go over seas and do the exact same theing ten fold. And why? Because "If they're not American who cares"
Then why no outrage over the terrorists for making a base amongst civilians. Would that NOT be a double standard? Whether or not these buildings are actually used as terrorist bases is irrelevant as long as there is suspicion. Even if the buildings were being used by terrorists do you really think that ordinary civilians there would know what's happening behind every door? to them it's just a school. Schools know who does and doesn't belong inside....[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"] Even a school or a hospital can be deemed a "military target" if it is suspected as being a terrorist base.Crunchy_Nuts
[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"]So the best thing to do is give them EVEN MORE reason to hate the US? Kind of goes against the whole "hearts and minds" thing. yup that is exactly what i said :| I'm just pointing out that for all the efforts that America (and the west in general) seems to put into taking out terrorists just creates an environment in which more potential terrorists are created.[QUOTE="mems_1224"]people will hate and want to attack the US regardless. we dont need to kill someone's family for them to hate usmems_1224
Right, and all i'm hearing is "If they're not American who cares" which is the whole point of this argument from the beginning. America gets up in a rage when its own citizens die but no ones gives a flying **** when you go over seas and do the exact same theing ten fold. And why? Because "If they're not American who cares" other countries dont care when our citizens die, why should we???[QUOTE="mems_1224"]well they're sworn to protect american lives. just like pakistan is sworn to protect the lives of its citizens. cant do that when you're protecting terrorists DigitalExile
[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"] So the best thing to do is give them EVEN MORE reason to hate the US? Kind of goes against the whole "hearts and minds" thing.yup that is exactly what i said :| I'm just pointing out that for all the efforts that America (and the west in general) seems to put into taking out terrorists just creates an environment in which more potential terrorists are created.cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggsCrunchy_Nuts
[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"]Whether or not these buildings are actually used as terrorist bases is irrelevant as long as there is suspicion. Even if the buildings were being used by terrorists do you really think that ordinary civilians there would know what's happening behind every door? to them it's just a school. Schools know who does and doesn't belong inside.... Assuming that terrorists have actually infiltrated the school, then all it takes is one senior member of staff to turn a blind eye. No one else in that school is aware of what may be happening upstairs.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Then why no outrage over the terrorists for making a base amongst civilians. Would that NOT be a double standard?
LJS9502_basic
I'm just pointing out that for all the efforts that America (and the west in general) seems to put into taking out terrorists just creates an environment in which more potential terrorists are created.cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs Coming back to square one, unfortunately it's just the world we live in.[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"][QUOTE="mems_1224"] yup that is exactly what i said :|mems_1224
[QUOTE="mems_1224"]cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggs Coming back to square one, unfortunately it's just the world we live in. not really. by getting the job done by any means shows everyone we dont play around. you mess with the US prepare to be bombed[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"] I'm just pointing out that for all the efforts that America (and the west in general) seems to put into taking out terrorists just creates an environment in which more potential terrorists are created.Crunchy_Nuts
Assuming that terrorists have actually infiltrated the school, then all it takes is one senior member of staff to turn a blind eye. No one else in that school is aware of what may be happening upstairs.Crunchy_NutsThen the responsibility for the death of the children is the person that allowed terrorists in. Period. I don't believe for one moment that people in this thread that were under attack would not retaliate for fear a child or civilian is near. Survival instinct is man's strongest instinct.
[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"][QUOTE="mems_1224"]cant make an omelet without breaking a few eggsComing back to square one, unfortunately it's just the world we live in. not really. by getting the job done by any means shows everyone we dont play around. you mess with the US prepare to be bombed By getting the job done by any means shows the world that you're a bunch of ***** that deserves to get attacked like 9/11, forever going round the circle of violence and war.mems_1224
[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Right, and all i'm hearing is "If they're not American who cares" which is the whole point of this argument from the beginning. America gets up in a rage when its own citizens die but no ones gives a flying **** when you go over seas and do the exact same theing ten fold. And why? Because "If they're not American who cares" other countries dont care when our citizens die, why should we???Because they aren't invading America.[QUOTE="mems_1224"]well they're sworn to protect american lives. just like pakistan is sworn to protect the lives of its citizens. cant do that when you're protecting terrorists mems_1224
Then the responsibility for the death of the children is the person that allowed terrorists in. Period. I don't believe for one moment that people in this thread that were under attack would not retaliate for fear a child or civilian is near. Survival instinct is man's strongest instinct. "Assuming" was the key word here. Even if it didn't happen, as long as there is suspicion then that school is a "legitimate military target."[QUOTE="Crunchy_Nuts"]Assuming that terrorists have actually infiltrated the school, then all it takes is one senior member of staff to turn a blind eye. No one else in that school is aware of what may be happening upstairs.LJS9502_basic
Right, and all i'm hearing is "If they're not American who cares" which is the whole point of this argument from the beginning. America gets up in a rage when its own citizens die but no ones gives a flying **** when you go over seas and do the exact same theing ten fold. And why? Because "If they're not American who cares"[QUOTE="mems_1224"]well they're sworn to protect american lives. just like pakistan is sworn to protect the lives of its citizens. cant do that when you're protecting terrorists DigitalExile
I personally care when innocent people die. However, I don't confuse accidental deaths with intentional deaths. If an innocent child dies in an airstrike aiming for a terrorist it's unfortunate but it's not intentional. On the other hand, if a terrorist kills people like in the 9/11 attacks that was intentional. A lot of people here are confusing the two and are acting like the US is intentionally killing those innocent people, which they are not.
Right, and all i'm hearing is "If they're not American who cares" which is the whole point of this argument from the beginning. America gets up in a rage when its own citizens die but no ones gives a flying **** when you go over seas and do the exact same theing ten fold. And why? Because "If they're not American who cares"[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]
[QUOTE="mems_1224"]well they're sworn to protect american lives. just like pakistan is sworn to protect the lives of its citizens. cant do that when you're protecting terrorists ad1x2
I personally care when innocent people die. However, I don't confuse accidental deaths with intentional deaths. If an innocent child dies in an airstrike aiming for a terrorist it's unfortunate but it's not intentional. On the other hand, if a terrorist kills people like in the 9/11 attacks that was intentional. A lot of people here are confusing the two and are acting like the US is intentionally killing those innocent people, which they are not.
What is "accidental"? Does that just mean "We were aiming for someone else"? Can these "accidental" deaths really be excused if they are expected to happen? If you see some bad guy in a school and you need to take him out and you know you're going to have to kill 50 students, are their deaths really accidental?
It makes me sad that there are civilian casualties... beleive me, it does... but also, people have to remember, the enemy is hiding amongst the civilians. I'm not trying to justify it at all, just stating why there are civilian deaths.
other countries dont care when our citizens die, why should we???Because they aren't invading America.you cant commit one of the worst attacks ever on american soil and not expect retaliation. it would look worse if we did nothing[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Right, and all i'm hearing is "If they're not American who cares" which is the whole point of this argument from the beginning. America gets up in a rage when its own citizens die but no ones gives a flying **** when you go over seas and do the exact same theing ten fold. And why? Because "If they're not American who cares"
DigitalExile
They dont care they blow up mass crowds at markets and such
[QUOTE="ad1x2"]
[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Right, and all i'm hearing is "If they're not American who cares" which is the whole point of this argument from the beginning. America gets up in a rage when its own citizens die but no ones gives a flying **** when you go over seas and do the exact same theing ten fold. And why? Because "If they're not American who cares"
DigitalExile
I personally care when innocent people die. However, I don't confuse accidental deaths with intentional deaths. If an innocent child dies in an airstrike aiming for a terrorist it's unfortunate but it's not intentional. On the other hand, if a terrorist kills people like in the 9/11 attacks that was intentional. A lot of people here are confusing the two and are acting like the US is intentionally killing those innocent people, which they are not.
What is "accidental"? Does that just mean "We were aiming for someone else"? Can these "accidental" deaths really be excused if they are expected to happen? If you see some bad guy in a school and you need to take him out and you know you're going to have to kill 50 students, are their deaths really accidental?As much as it may suck, yes, that is what it means. The people in charge look at the situation and try to prevent civilian deaths if it is decided a strike needs to happen. But just like any other situation, bad things happen and the wrong person may die. You will never see troops intentionally aim for children, unlike the Taliban who will slaughter a whole family on purpose. In case you didn't realise it, terrorists will intentionally hang around innocent people so if they are killed innocents die too and it will stir up an emotional response against their enemy. Troops, on the other hand, stay away from civilians whenever possible.
[QUOTE="ad1x2"]
[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Right, and all i'm hearing is "If they're not American who cares" which is the whole point of this argument from the beginning. America gets up in a rage when its own citizens die but no ones gives a flying **** when you go over seas and do the exact same theing ten fold. And why? Because "If they're not American who cares"
DigitalExile
I personally care when innocent people die. However, I don't confuse accidental deaths with intentional deaths. If an innocent child dies in an airstrike aiming for a terrorist it's unfortunate but it's not intentional. On the other hand, if a terrorist kills people like in the 9/11 attacks that was intentional. A lot of people here are confusing the two and are acting like the US is intentionally killing those innocent people, which they are not.
What is "accidental"? Does that just mean "We were aiming for someone else"? Can these "accidental" deaths really be excused if they are expected to happen? If you see some bad guy in a school and you need to take him out and you know you're going to have to kill 50 students, are their deaths really accidental?war isn't an exact science. innocent people are going to die sometimesyou cant commit one of the worst attacks ever on american soil and not expect retaliation. it would look worse if we did nothingmems_1224As opposed to invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks and chasing the guy responsible around remote mountainous regions for 10 years? Yeah good work there. America basically Hulk smashed it way across Irag and Afghanistan to exact revenge of some guy who had been living relatively comfortable for the last 10 years. Good work there America, you really stood up for freedom and liberty while knocking down homes,s chools, hospitals and killing innocent people. WAY TO DEFEND OUR WAY OF LIFE. I guess that's expected when America's way of life is invading other countries.
Edit: Before anyone accuses me of trolling I am talking of course about Vietnam, Korea and the first Gulf War where America stuck its head where it didn't really belong.
As opposed to invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks and chasing the guy responsible around remote mountainous regions for 10 years? Yeah good work there. America basically Hulk smashed it way across Irag and Afghanistan to exact revenge of some guy who had been living relatively comfortable for the last 10 years. Good work there America, you really stood up for freedom and liberty while knocking down homes,s chools, hospitals and killing innocent people. WAY TO DEFEND OUR WAY OF LIFE. I guess that's expected when America's way of life is invading other countries.i wouldn't say that a country thats hiding a mass murder had nothing to do with the attacks. if Pakistan would have cooperated this would have been a lot quicker and would have resulted in less deaths. actions have consequences. the deaths of their civilians are on their heads, not ours[QUOTE="mems_1224"]you cant commit one of the worst attacks ever on american soil and not expect retaliation. it would look worse if we did nothingDigitalExile
also dont make it sound like america goes out of its way to kill innocent people. thats just dumb. we've always done what we can to minimize civilian casualties but nothing is ever 100%
i wouldn't say that a country thats hiding a mass murder had nothing to do with the attacks. if Pakistan would have cooperated this would have been a lot quicker and would have resulted in less deaths. actions have consequences. the deaths of their civilians are on their heads, not oursmems_1224That's somewhat of a different issue. Certainly a valid point, aside from assuming Pakistan was actively assisting him in hiding. But it doesn't change the fact that America went all willy nilly in tracking him down. The original topic is that his actions led to an attack on America. America retaliated and caused the death of ten times as many innocent people. And yet on this day of mourning and remembrance, very little sympathy, if any, will be publicly expressed for the innocent victims caused by America's retaliation.
As opposed to invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks and chasing the guy responsible around remote mountainous regions for 10 years? Yeah good work there. America basically Hulk smashed it way across Irag and Afghanistan to exact revenge of some guy who had been living relatively comfortable for the last 10 years. Good work there America, you really stood up for freedom and liberty while knocking down homes,s chools, hospitals and killing innocent people. WAY TO DEFEND OUR WAY OF LIFE. I guess that's expected when America's way of life is invading other countries.[QUOTE="mems_1224"]you cant commit one of the worst attacks ever on american soil and not expect retaliation. it would look worse if we did nothingDigitalExile
Edit: Before anyone accuses me of trolling I am talking of course about Vietnam, Korea and the first Gulf War where America stuck its head where it didn't really belong.
Do you think any south korean person would be happy under north korean rule? As for vietnam, the US wasnt the first western country to meddle there. France had a bad history long before the US intervened. So if you're going to point the finger at the US for all its meddling, you're basically going to have to point the finger at many, many nations for their disruptive foreign policies as well. But people seem to ignore those other areas because it makes them uncomfortable, they'd rather put the blame on another country. I dont justify the iraq invasion - that was an unjust war. No clue what the point of that was.That's somewhat of a different issue. Certainly a valid point, aside from assuming Pakistan was actively assisting him in hiding. But it doesn't change the fact that America went all willy nilly in tracking him down. The original topic is that his actions led to an attack on America. America retaliated and caused the death of ten times as many innocent people. And yet on this day of mourning and remembrance, very little sympathy, if any, will be publicly expressed for the innocent victims caused by America's retaliation. Who's fault is that, though? Shouldn't the nations that suffered those losses have their own days of remembrance? Country's tend to honor their own.[QUOTE="mems_1224"]i wouldn't say that a country thats hiding a mass murder had nothing to do with the attacks. if Pakistan would have cooperated this would have been a lot quicker and would have resulted in less deaths. actions have consequences. the deaths of their civilians are on their heads, not oursDigitalExile
That's somewhat of a different issue. Certainly a valid point, aside from assuming Pakistan was actively assisting him in hiding. But it doesn't change the fact that America went all willy nilly in tracking him down. The original topic is that his actions led to an attack on America. America retaliated and caused the death of ten times as many innocent people. And yet on this day of mourning and remembrance, very little sympathy, if any, will be publicly expressed for the innocent victims caused by America's retaliation. Countries mourn their own...this is not unique to the US and it's disingenuous to state it as such.[QUOTE="mems_1224"]i wouldn't say that a country thats hiding a mass murder had nothing to do with the attacks. if Pakistan would have cooperated this would have been a lot quicker and would have resulted in less deaths. actions have consequences. the deaths of their civilians are on their heads, not oursDigitalExile
That's somewhat of a different issue. Certainly a valid point, aside from assuming Pakistan was actively assisting him in hiding. But it doesn't change the fact that America went all willy nilly in tracking him down. The original topic is that his actions led to an attack on America. America retaliated and caused the death of ten times as many innocent people. And yet on this day of mourning and remembrance, very little sympathy, if any, will be publicly expressed for the innocent victims caused by America's retaliation.well if your country doesn't want to publically express sympathy thats not america's problem[QUOTE="mems_1224"]i wouldn't say that a country thats hiding a mass murder had nothing to do with the attacks. if Pakistan would have cooperated this would have been a lot quicker and would have resulted in less deaths. actions have consequences. the deaths of their civilians are on their heads, not oursDigitalExile
[QUOTE="ad1x2"]
[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Right, and all i'm hearing is "If they're not American who cares" which is the whole point of this argument from the beginning. America gets up in a rage when its own citizens die but no ones gives a flying **** when you go over seas and do the exact same theing ten fold. And why? Because "If they're not American who cares"
DigitalExile
I personally care when innocent people die. However, I don't confuse accidental deaths with intentional deaths. If an innocent child dies in an airstrike aiming for a terrorist it's unfortunate but it's not intentional. On the other hand, if a terrorist kills people like in the 9/11 attacks that was intentional. A lot of people here are confusing the two and are acting like the US is intentionally killing those innocent people, which they are not.
What is "accidental"? Does that just mean "We were aiming for someone else"? Can these "accidental" deaths really be excused if they are expected to happen? If you see some bad guy in a school and you need to take him out and you know you're going to have to kill 50 students, are their deaths really accidental?If only war was so black and white. Unfortunately, there is a lot of grey area, and sometimes, civilians will die.
I don't think anyone in this thread has said that they don't care if civilians die like some have asserted. I truly wish no civilians had to die, but I'm also aware enough to know that sometimes civilians do die in war, despite the warring party's attempts to not allow that to happen.
It is not uncommon for a country to car about their own citizens more than citizens of other countries. That isn't unique to the US at all. If I was in some hostile country and being attacked, would I go to the American Embassy or the Nigerian Embassy for help? Why would the Nigerian Embassy want to give me assistance when there is an American Embassy across the street? When I go on CNN.com, I see stories about American troops that died, but I don't see any about British troops that died. When I go on the BBC, I see stories about British troops that died, but not story about American troops that died. The fact is, it is human nature to care more about your own people.
In the end, civilians casualties are always bad and should always be avoided if possible. And the US is actively trying to avoid them. There are in no way purposely going out and killing civilians, which is the key difference between them and the terrorists. 9/11 wasn't an attack on the US military or government in which civilians were killed, but it was a direct attack on the US population. The drone strikes are not direct attacks on the population in any way.
Of course there's going to be casualties, that's unavoidable, but what nobody understands is the process before a UAV can actually deploy munitions against a target.
War creates civilian casualties.
During the Civil War Sherman's men burnt down half the South, any innocents caught in the blaze were considered casualties. The war didn't stop because of it.
During World War II, Allied Forces killed thousands of German and Japanese civilians during the invasions of their home countries, and in Vietnam we killed thousands and poisoned just as many with chemical agents.
Civilian casualties are a grim fact of war and everyone does acknowledge them. But wars don't stop because of collateral damage.
Military tech has advanced tremendously in the last few decades. Precision guided weaponry have dramatically reduced collateral damage. That said, it's impossible to negate it completely.
The unfortunate fact is that the majority of terror related offences in the West are committed by extremists of Pakistani descent. As long as this trend continues, UAV's are going to be a necessity in that region.
An article worth reading on drone strikes in Pakistan:
Pakistani civilian and military leaders are insisting on an effective veto over which targets US drone strikes hit, according to well-informed Pakistani military sources here.
The sources, who met on condition that they not be identified, said that such veto power over the conduct of the drone war is a central element in a new Pakistani demand for a formal government-to-government agreement on the terms under which the United States and Pakistan will cooperate against insurgents in Pakistan.
The basic government-to-government agreement now being demanded would be followed, the sources said, by more detailed agreements between US and Pakistani military leaders and intelligence agencies.
The new Pakistani demand for equal say over drone strikes marks the culmination of a long evolution in the Pakistani military's attitude toward the drone war. Initially supportive of strikes that were targeting al-Qaeda leaders, senior Pakistani military leaders soon came to realise that the drone war carried serious risks for Pakistan's war against the Pakistani Taliban.
A key turning point in the attitude of the military was the unilateral US decision to focus the drone war on those Pakistani insurgents who had already decided to make peace with the Pakistani governmentand who opposed the war being waged by al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban against the Pakistani military.
A free hand
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was allowed to run the drone war almost completely unilaterally for years, according to former Pakistani military leaders and diplomats, and the Pakistani military has only mustered the political will to challenge the US power to carry out drone strikes unilaterally in recent months.
General Pervez Musharraf allowed the drone strikes from 2004 to 2007 in order to ensure political support from the George W. Bush administration, something Musharraf had been denied during the Bill Clinton administration, according to Shamshad Ahmad, who was Pakistan's foreign secretary and then ambassador to the United Nations from 1997 to 2002.
"Those were the days when we felt that we had to work with the Americans on al-Qaeda," recalled General Asad Durrani, a former director general of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI).
The choice of targets "usually was done by the US unilaterally", said Durrani. Two Pakistani generals confirmed that point in a separate interview.
The Musharraf regime even went so far as to provide cover for the drone strikes, repeatedly asserting after strikes that the explosions had been caused by the victims themselves making home-made bombs.
But that effort at transparent deception by the US and Musharraf quickly fell apart when drone strikes were based on faulty intelligence and killed large numbers of civilians rather than al-Qaeda leaders.
The worst such strike was an October 30, 2006, drone attack on a madrassa in Chenagai village in Bajaur agency, which killed 82 people. Musharraf, who was primarily concerned with avoiding the charge of complicity in US attacks on Pakistani targets, ordered the Pakistani military to take complete responsibility for the incident.
The spokesman for the Pakistani military claimed "confirmed intelligence reports that 70 to 80 militants were hiding in a madrassa used as a terrorist training facility" and said the Pakistani military had fired missiles at the madrassa.
But eyewitnesses in the village identified US drones as the source of the attack and said all the victims were simply local students of the madrassa. Local people compiled a complete list of the names and ages of all 80 victims, showing that 25 of the dead had been aged seven to 15, which was published in The News International.
Senior military officers believed the CIA had other reasons for launching the strike in Bajaur. The day before the drone attack, tribal elders in Bajaur had held a public meeting to pledge their willingness to abide by a peace accord with the government, and the government had released nine tribesmen, including some militants.
Former ISI chief Durrani recalled that the strike "effectively sabotaged the chances for an agreement" in Bajaur. That was "a very clear message" from the CIA not to enter into any more such peace agreements, Durrani said.
The madrassa strike was a turning point for many officers. "So many of us went in and said this is stupid," Durrani recalled.
When Musharraf was pressured to step down as the army chief of staff, and was replaced by General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani in November 2007, the unilateral character of the CIA's drone war "pretty much continued", according to General Jehanger Karamat - ambassador to the United States from 2004 to 2006, having retired as the army chief of staff in 1998.
The CIA's drone war became more contentious in 2008, as the Bush administration concentrated the strikes on those who had made peace with the Pakistani government. Two-thirds of the drone strikes that year were on targets associated with Jalaluddin Haqqani and Mullah Nazeer, both of whom were involved in supporting Taliban forces in Afghanistan, but who opposed attacks on the Pakistani government.
Targeting the Haqqani network and his allies posed serious risks for Pakistan. When the Pakistani Army was fighting in South Waziristan, it had its logistic base in an area that was controlled by the Haqqani group, and it had been able to count on the security of that base.
Meanwhile, ISI had given the CIA accurate information on anti-Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud's location on four occasions, but the US had failed to target him, according to a May 2009 column by retired Pakistani Gen. Shaukat Qadir.
In 2009, more of the drone strikes - almost 40 percent of the total - focused on the Taliban under Mehsud, and Mehsud himself was killed, which tended to mollify the Pakistani military.
But that effect did not last long. In 2010, only three strikes were aimed at Mehsud's anti-Pakistan Taliban organisation, while well over half the strikes were against Hafiz Gul Bahadur, an ally of Haqqani who had signed an agreement with the Pakistani government in September 2006 that he would not shelter any anti-Pakistani militants.
A fundamental change
The Barack Obama administration had made a deliberate decision around mid-2010 that it didn't care if targeting the Haqqani network and other pro-Pakistani Taliban groups upset the Pakistanis, as the Wall Street Journal reported October 23, 2010.
But two events caused Pakistani army chief Kayani to demand a fundamental change in US policy toward the drone war.
The first was the arrest of CIA operative Raymond Davis on the charge of killing two Pakistanis in cold blood in January, which was followed by intense US pressure for his release.
The second was a drone strike on March 17, just one day after Davis was released, which was initially reported to have been an attack on a gathering of Haqqani network officials.
It turned out that the drone attack had killed dozens of tribal and sub-tribal elders who had gathered from all over North Waziristan to discuss an economic issue.
A former US official admitted that the strike was carried out because the CIA was "angry" over the fact that Davis had been kept in prison for seven weeks. "It was retaliation for Davis," the official said, according to an August 2 Associated Press story.
That strike helped galvanise the Pakistani military leadership. ISI chief Shuja Pasha took it as a slap in the face, because he had personally intervened to get Davis out of jail. Kayani shocked the Americans by issuing the first denunciation of drone strikes by an Army chief.
When Pasha went to Washington in April, he took with him the first official Pakistani demand for an equal say in drone strike decisions.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/2011817133518875135.html?utm_content=automateplus&utm_campaign=Trial5&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_term=tweets&utm_medium=MasterAccount
---------------------------------------------------------
I've highlighted a few interesting points. US deliberately killed 40 innocentpeople because they were angry Pakistan has kept CIA operative in prison (Raymond Davis murdered 2 people). They deliberately killed scores of young people in a Madrassa in an attempt to break any peace treaty between Pakistan and pro Taliban fighters (this kick started suicide bombings across Pakistan and to this day 35,000 innocent people have died and Pakistan has lost more soliders then NATO has in Afghanistan yet people say Pakistan needs to do more :roll: )
Also Al Qaeda operatives are only targetted with drones once in a while. The real target are foot soldiers whose only goal is to expel foreign troops from Afghanistan rather than to carry out attacks in West so US is willing to kill thousands of innocent people and a few "suspected militants in their midst" just so they don't have to fight them in Afghanistan which means less NATO deaths.
snipHarisemoWell if the U.S. is considered entirely responsible, as an entity, for all actions then why can we not consider ALL of Pakistan terrorists if only some of them handle such actions?
[QUOTE="Harisemo"]snipCreasianDevailiWell is the U.S. is considered entirely responsible, as an entity, for all actions then why can we not consider ALL of Pakistan terrorists if only some of them handle such actions?
*sigh* By US I mean US government, not every single American.
HarisemoSo Pakistan wants to pick and choose which insurgents are a target? Also they don't give a source for much of that article so it has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Well is the U.S. is considered entirely responsible, as an entity, for all actions then why can we not consider ALL of Pakistan terrorists if only some of them handle such actions?[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]snipHarisemo
*sigh* By US I mean US government, not every single American.
Maybe you do maybe you do not. I do know that the world keeps acting like our entire nation jumps out in the streets shooting guns in the air laughing when arab children are killed. Hell we do not even do that when we see other countries having public orgasms when ours do. Anyhow.. My question was more towards the general seeming consensus that ALL of america was behind some CIA grudge retaliation of a operative that none of us even knew existed in pakistan based on the article that you posted.[QUOTE="Harisemo"]LJS9502_basicSo Pakistan wants to pick and choose which insurgents are a target? Also they don't give a source for much of that article so it has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
Does anything have credibility that goes against your views of saintly US government? Not even worth arguing with you tbh
[QUOTE="Harisemo"][QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Well is the U.S. is considered entirely responsible, as an entity, for all actions then why can we not consider ALL of Pakistan terrorists if only some of them handle such actions? CreasianDevaili
*sigh* By US I mean US government, not every single American.
Maybe you do maybe you do not. I do know that the world keeps acting like our entire nation jumps out in the streets shooting guns in the air laughing when arab children are killed. Hell we do not even do that when we see other countries having public orgasms when ours do. Anyhow.. My question was more towards the general seeming consensus that ALL of america was behind some CIA grudge retaliation of a operative that none of us even knew existed in pakistan based on the article that you posted.Most Americans don't know what's happening so I don't blame them.
So Pakistan wants to pick and choose which insurgents are a target? Also they don't give a source for much of that article so it has no credibility as far as I'm concerned.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Harisemo"]Harisemo
Does anything have credibility that goes against your views of saintly US government? Not even worth arguing with you tbh
I've never said the US government was perfect. But copy/paste with no source should not be a credible source for anyone.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment