OK, so UAVs have killed people in Pakistan on the war on terror

So your saying, we can't aim, however we don't really care?

tenaka2

That's war for you. Innocent civillians sometimes get caught up in the battle.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Not at all.....LJS9502_basic

Actually yes, america has killed more innocent muslems then any amount of terrorists, its why muslems have the hump.

Im sure I can provide stats on the deaths in irak and afganistan for civilivan causualties from both wars, I can provide it if you wish, it would totally destroy you little arguement however. But as is known one has to be a bit careful on the puplising facts here.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]oh but maybee so....

LJS9502_basic

Maybe not but they started these wars. The deaths would have been avoided if the US wouldn't have acted so irresponsibly. And I still believe more innocent people died as a direct result of US attacks than terrorists or insurgents just because the US refuses to count the civilians they kill doesn't mean they don't exist.

And I am talking about innocent civilians. However, there is something I thought about. I think I remember reading on these forums about these drone attacks killing civilians along the way. The people who responded said something that sounded like, "Well, they're just casualties." IMO, that's the problem. If it happens in some far off country, we are like, "Well, too bad." But if some country different from our own were to do that stuff in our territory and killing innocent civilians, I think we'd be pretty mad. What do you guys think?

hydralisk86

thats pretty much what i said in that post, but you know how people go, if its victims in their side, they are unavoidable casualties, and that makes it ok because its wr on terror!

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"]

And I am talking about innocent civilians. However, there is something I thought about. I think I remember reading on these forums about these drone attacks killing civilians along the way. The people who responded said something that sounded like, "Well, they're just casualties." IMO, that's the problem. If it happens in some far off country, we are like, "Well, too bad." But if some country different from our own were to do that stuff in our territory and killing innocent civilians, I think we'd be pretty mad. What do you guys think?

Krelian-co

thats pretty much what i said in that post, but you know how people go, if its victims in their side, they are unavoidable casualties, and that makes it ok because its wr on terror!

War on terror is just an excuse for the government to do whatever the **** they want and get away with it.

War on terror is just an excuse for the government to do whatever the **** they want and get away with it.

Mind_Mover

yep pretty much, its just sounds so cool that the masses buy it.

excuse to invade people and companies privacy, oil stealing and invading countries. And the people love it because its war on terror.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

War on terror is just an excuse for the government to do whatever the **** they want and get away with it.

Krelian-co

yep pretty much, its just sounds so cool that the masses buy it.

excuse to invade people and companies privacy, oil stealing and invading countries. And the people love it because its war on terror.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] So if insurgents were to attack american civilians, are they collateral damage, knowing that the american government manipulates them? I'm predicting you will say no because the insurgents aren't the US military. lol :P

kuraimen

no, because the US is not targeting civilians. When will you people accept the difference?

You think the general is sitting there at the drone screen and saying "Ooooh, look, a nice Pakistani farmer's market. Take 'em out"? C'mon people get a grip; we are targeting military targets, and civilians are in proximity.

Lets go over this again:

insurgents attack civilians, with the purpose of killing civilians, to acheive political ends

military attacks military to achieve political ends, and unfortunately civilians get killed despite attempts not to.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

no, because the US is not targeting civilians. When will you people accept the difference?

You think the general is sitting there at the drone screen and saying "Ooooh, look, a nice Pakistani farmer's market. Take 'em out"? C'mon people get a grip; we are targeting military targets, and civilians are in proximity.

Lets go over this again:

insurgents attack civilians, with the purpose of killing civilians, to acheive political ends

military attacks military to achieve political ends, and unfortunately civilians get killed despite attempts not to.

mems_1224

Speaking from an Irish point of view. If your not involved in a way and a side kills your parents, brothers, sisters for no reason, you become involved in that war.

You become for some unknown reason to dislike the people that killed the people in your family, I cant really understand it.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Actually if we follow the 9/11 attacks terrorists attacked political, military and economic targets to cause a political end and civilians happened to be in the middle of the attacks. The US also attack political, military and economical targets and civilians happen to be in the middle. Both acts are the same despicable kind of crap.parkurtommo

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Actually if we follow the 9/11 attacks terrorists attacked political, military and economic targets to cause a political end and civilians happened to be in the middle of the attacks. The US also attack political, military and economical targets and civilians happen to be in the middle. Both acts are the same despicable kind of crap.parkurtommo

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"] saying both acts are the same is completely stupid and ignorant mems_1224

It's never ok when innocent people are killed. I understand it can happen, but that doesnt mean I have to accept it. If we are going to put a value on life, then we should hold to those values for all human life.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"] saying both acts are the same is completely stupid and ignorant mems_1224

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"]Reason?

kuraimen

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Actually if we follow the 9/11 attacks terrorists attacked political, military and economic targets to cause a political end and civilians happened to be in the middle of the attacks. The US also attack political, military and economical targets and civilians happen to be in the middle. Both acts are the same despicable kind of crap.parkurtommo

When the US is attacking insurgents and the Taliban the bad guys are the explicit target. They do everything in their power to hit only the enemy but unfortunately some civilians die in the attack. That is a reality of war. I wish that we could avoid hurting innocent people but if they are in the way they're probably going to get hurt.

On the other hand, on 9/11 terrorists intentionally took planes FULL OF CIVILIANS and rammed them into buildings FULL OF CIVILIANS for the purpose of killing as many people as possible. If it was a traditional war I could almost excuse them hitting the Pentagon since it's the center of the Department of Defense. But the WTC? What military reason did they have to do that?

That's the difference. If you can't see that then your dislike for the US is clouding your judgement.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"]Reason?

parkurtommo

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"]Uhhh what? Hang around with terrorists? airshocker

Osama bin Laden was hiding in their country. Fertilizer from their plants goes into making IEDs that are used against enemy troops. That doesn't sound like an innocent country.

The civilian casualties are regrettable, but that's the nature of this kind of warfare.

Americans funded the IRA to around 40%, American sniper rifles were provided to and used by that terorrist organisation to kill British soldiers and fund bombs some of which went of at memorial services for WW1/2 soldiers and most of which killed inoccent civilians and one of which was used in an attempted assasination of the British Prime Minister, that doeesn't sound like an innocent country.
That dosn't make terrorism in the USA something I would condone or want to happen.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mems_1224"] if you cant see the difference then i feel so sorry for youmems_1224

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Actually yes, america has killed more innocent muslems then any amount of terrorists, its why muslems have the hump.

tenaka2

Im sure I can provide stats on the deaths in irak and afganistan for civilivan causualties from both wars, I can provide it if you wish, it would totally destroy you little arguement however. But as is known one has to be a bit careful on the puplising facts here.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"]

[QUOTE="mems_1224"] saying both acts are the same is completely stupid and ignorant Overlord93

Take your pick the US and Europe in general has a wide history in causing much harm to places like the Middle East for economic or political gain.. Or don't tell me, they overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran Mosadeq and installed the brutal and corrupt Shah for the people? This isn't suggesting the US is as bad as certain terrorist groups, but the United States isn't exactly the clean sheet you guys are making it out of it.. And if we are going to believe in American exceptionalism, then we must be more critical of our own actions than any one elses..

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"]Uhhh what? Hang around with terrorists? MattDistillery

Osama bin Laden was hiding in their country. Fertilizer from their plants goes into making IEDs that are used against enemy troops. That doesn't sound like an innocent country.

The civilian casualties are regrettable, but that's the nature of this kind of warfare.

Americans funded the IRA to around 40%, American sniper rifles were provided to and used by that terorrist organisation to kill British soldiers and fund bombs some of which went of at memorial services for WW1/2 soldiers and most of which killed inoccent civilians and one of which was used in an attempted assasination of the British Prime Minister, that doeesn't sound like an innocent country.
That dosn't make terrorism in the USA something I would condone or want to happen.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The problem is that those that say there is a reason make a very poor case to explain how they are difference. Their excuses amount to we didn't mean it and/or we are the good guys.kuraimen

If the terrorists wanted to prove a point they should have just crashed all four planes into the Pentagon and other military targets. There was no reason to hit the WTC, which was full of civilians. They intentionally killed civilians, we didn't. Whether or not you want to believe that is your choice.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"][QUOTE="parkurtommo"]Reason?

kuraimen

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And I'm sure you have the proof of that.LJS9502_basic

Im sure I can provide stats on the deaths in irak and afganistan for civilivan causualties from both wars, I can provide it if you wish, it would totally destroy you little arguement however. But as is known one has to be a bit careful on the puplising facts here.

Directly and indirectly the US can be held accountable to a extent.. The Bush adminstration went in with their pants down not realizing they were going into a powder keg.. So when the law aka Saddam was taken down, many gurilla groups went on a rampage killing innocent people.. Not to mention the huge damage that occured to the infastructure that led to some deaths.. The US may not have needed to drop the bombs or shot the guns to kill every one, but they with little lack of research or care was not able to protect the civilian population that became their responsibility when they overthrew teh government.. This wasn't a war of defense, this was a war of choice.. And in such scenerios imo morally one is obligated to hold responsibility for the populace..

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"]Uhhh what? Hang around with terrorists? MattDistillery

Osama bin Laden was hiding in their country. Fertilizer from their plants goes into making IEDs that are used against enemy troops. That doesn't sound like an innocent country.

The civilian casualties are regrettable, but that's the nature of this kind of warfare.

Americans funded the IRA to around 40%, American sniper rifles were provided to and used by that terorrist organisation to kill British soldiers and fund bombs some of which went of at memorial services for WW1/2 soldiers and most of which killed inoccent civilians and one of which was used in an attempted assasination of the British Prime Minister, that doeesn't sound like an innocent country.
That dosn't make terrorism in the USA something I would condone or want to happen.

[QUOTE="mems_1224"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] The problem is that those that say there is a reason make a very poor case to explain how they are difference. Their excuses amount to we didn't mean it and/or we are the good guys.kuraimen

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And I'm sure you have the proof of that.LJS9502_basic

Im sure I can provide stats on the deaths in irak and afganistan for civilivan causualties from both wars, I can provide it if you wish, it would totally destroy you little arguement however. But as is known one has to be a bit careful on the puplising facts here.

On Friday, 14 September 2007,ORB (Opinion Research Business),an independent polling agency located in London, publishedestimates of the total war casualties in Iraqsince theUS-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1]At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mems_1224"] the problem is that people make it seem like the US goes out of its way to kill civilians

ad1x2

If the terrorists wanted to prove a point they should have just crashed all four planes into the Pentagon and other military targets. There was no reason to hit the WTC, which was full of civilians. They intentionally killed civilians, we didn't. Whether or not you want to believe that is your choice.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Im sure I can provide stats on the deaths in irak and afganistan for civilivan causualties from both wars, I can provide it if you wish, it would totally destroy you little arguement however. But as is known one has to be a bit careful on the puplising facts here.

tenaka2

At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mems_1224"] the problem is that people make it seem like the US goes out of its way to kill civilians

ad1x2

If the terrorists wanted to prove a point they should have just crashed all four planes into the Pentagon and other military targets. There was no reason to hit the WTC, which was full of civilians. They intentionally killed civilians, we didn't. Whether or not you want to believe that is your choice.

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"][QUOTE="mems_1224"] if you cant see the difference then i feel so sorry for yousonicare

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So then you don't have any proof that the US is the cause of high numbers of casualties?sonicare

At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths

We only sold the guns, its really only the bullets that harm people.

We only sell bullets its the guns that harm people.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="mems_1224"] the problem is that people make it seem like the US goes out of its way to kill civilians

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths

tenaka2

We only sold the guns, its really only the bullets that harm people.

We only sell bullets its the guns that harm people.

Don't forget we kind of lost track of them, along with millions of dollars in the region :lol:

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

Osama bin Laden was hiding in their country. Fertilizer from their plants goes into making IEDs that are used against enemy troops. That doesn't sound like an innocent country.

The civilian casualties are regrettable, but that's the nature of this kind of warfare.

LJS9502_basic

Americans funded the IRA to around 40%, American sniper rifles were provided to and used by that terorrist organisation to kill British soldiers and fund bombs some of which went of at memorial services for WW1/2 soldiers and most of which killed inoccent civilians and one of which was used in an attempted assasination of the British Prime Minister, that doeesn't sound like an innocent country.
That dosn't make terrorism in the USA something I would condone or want to happen.

I never said it did I said 'Americans' in refrence to private citizens... And I was hoping that would be your response as the Pakistan goverment doesn't fund Al Qaeda. Its a roundabout way of trying to point out the hypocrisy of determining a Goverment (In this case Pakistan) by the actions of individual citizens.

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Maybe not, maybe the terrorists don't get out of their way to kill civilians either maybe they just don't have millions of dollars in planes to drop bombs on their targets so they have to strap explosives on themselves and fly planes full of people to make their point. Either way both acts are equally disgusting using million dollar planes or not.Mind_Mover

If the terrorists wanted to prove a point they should have just crashed all four planes into the Pentagon and other military targets. There was no reason to hit the WTC, which was full of civilians. They intentionally killed civilians, we didn't. Whether or not you want to believe that is your choice.

I don't know why people always bring up that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when saying we shouldn't have invaded. Last time I checked the US had justification to invade based on over a dozen UN-mandated restrictions put on Iraq as a condition of Saddam's surrender in 1991 after the Gulf War he constantly broke. Bad intel told us he had a lot of WMDs, which proved false for the most part (there were a few illegal items found there, such as some yellowcake).

Basically I'm trying to say that the US is no better than the insurgents because they are both killing civilians, may it be intentional or not.parkurtommo

I don't know why people always bring up that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when saying we shouldn't have invaded. ad1x2

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Im sure I can provide stats on the deaths in irak and afganistan for civilivan causualties from both wars, I can provide it if you wish, it would totally destroy you little arguement however. But as is known one has to be a bit careful on the puplising facts here.

tenaka2

And I had to erase your post because it wouldn't let me quote it.

[QUOTE="Mind_Mover"]

[QUOTE="ad1x2"]

If the terrorists wanted to prove a point they should have just crashed all four planes into the Pentagon and other military targets. There was no reason to hit the WTC, which was full of civilians. They intentionally killed civilians, we didn't. Whether or not you want to believe that is your choice.

ad1x2

I don't know why people always bring up that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 when saying we shouldn't have invaded. Last time I checked the US had justification to invade based on over a dozen UN-mandated restrictions put on Iraq as a condition of Saddam's surrender in 1991 after the Gulf War he constantly broke. Bad intel told us he had a lot of WMDs, which proved false for the most part (there were a few illegal items found there, such as some yellowcake).

Um no.. See whats before mandated? UN.. The UN was actually opposed of invading Iraq including a few security council members with veto power..

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

Americans funded the IRA to around 40%, American sniper rifles were provided to and used by that terorrist organisation to kill British soldiers and fund bombs some of which went of at memorial services for WW1/2 soldiers and most of which killed inoccent civilians and one of which was used in an attempted assasination of the British Prime Minister, that doeesn't sound like an innocent country.
That dosn't make terrorism in the USA something I would condone or want to happen.

MattDistillery

I never said it did I said 'Americans' in refrence to private citizens... And I was hoping that would be your response as the Pakistan goverment doesn't fund Al Qaeda. Its a roundabout way of trying to point out the hypocrisy of determining a Goverment (In this case Pakistan) by the actions of individual citizens.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MattDistillery"]

Americans funded the IRA to around 40%, American sniper rifles were provided to and used by that terorrist organisation to kill British soldiers and fund bombs some of which went of at memorial services for WW1/2 soldiers and most of which killed inoccent civilians and one of which was used in an attempted assasination of the British Prime Minister, that doeesn't sound like an innocent country.
That dosn't make terrorism in the USA something I would condone or want to happen.

MattDistillery

I never said it did I said 'Americans' in refrence to private citizens... And I was hoping that would be your response as the Pakistan goverment doesn't fund Al Qaeda. Its a roundabout way of trying to point out the hypocrisy of determining a Goverment (In this case Pakistan) by the actions of individual citizens.

Disagree with you there.. Pakistan has alot of reason to support AQ they are a great "threat" against India, in which Pakistan are more or less sworn enemies with... Why the US continues to fund Pakistan is ridiculous, they have shown to be incredibly corrupt and really only care about the threat of India at their borders more than anything else.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So then you don't have any proof that the US is the cause of high numbers of casualties?LJS9502_basic

And I had to erase your post because it wouldn't let me quote it.

Dont edit posts to suit agenda, i provided valid stats.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="parkurtommo"] You still haven't explained why...parkurtommo

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]Well...they are casualties. War doesn't exempt civilians. hydralisk86