Over 100 Children Killed in US-Led Airstrikes.....

Article here

Shit man doesn't this kind of thing create more American haters than the American haters America are trying to kill?

And all of this simply trying to kill a JV team.

we came to grips with the abject murder of civillans thousands of years ago and 100 kids is jack shit compared to dresden, hiroshima, tokyos firebombing and about 1000 other events in the last 100 years.

What makes this different from evey other combat action in mankinds history?

Civilians are going to be slaughtered wholesale and some people are going to profit from it.

Welcome to reality.

For example:Let's see ISIS,or another terrorist group or country do that thing to American soil.The U.S. would nuke the planet.Why or how is Americans getting away with this type of shit all the time??But of course remember 09/11/01.That was Bin Laden right??Right???Yeah right. :(

And all the republicans are fussed about Planned Parenthood.

How reliable is the source? I never heard of this airwars.org, googling didn't turn up much on this supposed independent journalist project. I want to know exactly how the data is collected, considering ISIS is known well for kidnapping and executing any western journalists in their controlled area in Syria and Iraq.

lol :) In fact,I am.Still doesn't change the fact the American Government are a group of a**holes.

@brimmul777: I don't normally like to brag or go into a bunch of jingoistic nationalism or anything but I just don't think foreigners have the work ethic and the skills required to kill more americans in america than americans already do.

Hells yeah, can I get a motherfucking usa chant up in this bitch.

War sucks. Unfortunately, innocent people get caught in the crossfire. It has been that way for thousands of years.

You also have to consider the reasoning why people get caught in the crossfire. There are unclassified intelligence reports that state some insurgent leaders intentionally surround themselves with women and children in order to prevent drone strikes and most of the time their gamble keeps them alive.

Do you take meds too. :0 :)

What government isn't?

@brimmul777: I wish. Although once I am in the medical system I'm going to see if I can request a lobotomy.

So very true.But you'd have to agree on this:Some a**holes are bigger then other's.

Good luck to you Sir.

Bigger the country, greater the assholes who run it.

For all of our mistakes we're still better than ISIS, who have murdered tens of thousands of men, women and children.

.. No one is comparing the US government to ISIS.. And if you have to make that comparison it pretty much is acknowledging what happened is fucked up..

Psh, if there weren't veiled comparisons then there will certainly be somebody making the claim eventually. That's how OT works.

It is fucked up. That's the nature of military conflicts, though.

I see.. So we should pass off the tired trope of "This is war" when we have kids from Pakistan in interviews saying that they only feel safe going outside when it's cloudy? When it is cloudy the drones cannot fly, hence they feel like they are not going to die.. Am I the only one here that sees the problem with some of the campaigns happening over there? This is an excuse to do things that are wrong or questionable of any and all types with the whole "this is war" crap.. It pretty much is a red herring in actually being critical of any kind of policy.. Guess what World War 2 was a military conflict as well, that didn't excuse one of the greatest human rights violations in the US during that period with the internment of the Japanese Americans.. You don't see people saying "well that's war!", that's because even during times of conflicts there is stuff you should not do, or that you should question or be critical of.. The US's drone policies is most definitely one of those.

Are we to use that "well that's war!" when we talk about the CIA torturing people as well now? This isn't suggesting all war should be stopped or other such stuff.. But the bullshit excuse of shrugging your shoulders and saying "well that's war" needs to stop.. It pretty much trivialize the very important issues occurring throughout the world and diverts all criticism with this one line.

Planned Parenthood has killed 6,000,000 + kids

That's awful and a sad consequence of drone strikes. It's poor consolation to the families of the victims that it was not intentional. People need to have the government be more accountable and question the utility of these actions.

@Gaming-Planet: Why aren't the Democrats?

You don't have to. I will, though.

I was wondering the same thing.

Nonetheless throughout history civilians and children have been killed in war. It's not new.

We're really good at policing the world by killing innocent children. If we weren't going to war with ISIS right now, America would have no chance of survival. We must keep the Middle East destabilized and perpetually go to war with these terrorist groups, even if it means that we're creating the exact conditions for terrorist groups like ISIS in the first place. How else are we suppose to spread our democracy?

So your source of information that Americans are "raining" death from the skies with UCAVs on unsuspecting civilian women and children is what? One questionable "independent journalism project" and Pakistani children who have been exposed to anti-American propaganda from an early age? And what kind of policy are you referring to? Be specific. I would like to be critical of any policy that allow our military to target innocent children as well. Is your understanding that "drone policies" are some how different or excepted from law of armed conflicts (LOAC) which governs all services members?

Also how exactly is the unjust internment of Japanese Americans related? Is saying wars will inevitably have casualties including civilian ones excusing past acts of racism? I don't follow the logic there.

And about CIA tortures, we did locate OBL so there's that... Not saying we should let CIA torture whomever, but if torturing the right bad guys will ultimately save lives, then it's not so morally cut and dried.

Because it was all rainbows and unicorns there before Americans got involved. [/sarcasm]

Can't complain if you're for government though.

The fact is it wasn't legal for the US to invade Iraq or Afghanistan.

Seems like a reasonable tactic. Kill all the children so there's no one to take the place of the current insurgents.

Lmao!!

What are you laughing at,the size of your penis??

Kind of funny that people are trying to make U.S look moderate by comparing it to ISIS.

Good for you U.S. You're better than ISIS.

Oh, here we go. The right-wing doubt peddlers are already on the case. The source isn't reliable because they haven't heard of it...

for anyone that is curious about why this subject is such a joke to me it is pretty simple to sum up.

a tiny fraction of my tax dollars going to kill children is a drop in the bucket compared to the people that build my phone throwing themselves off buildings, the clothing on my back being produced by bloody fingered, sick, malnourished children that work 14 hour shifts for 2 dollars a day, the food that i eat destroying the environment and produced by slave labor, and my entire existence being based on the exploitation of countless generations of other humans. those are all things i am far more responsible in a direct way for.

if you can't see how your entire existence is based on basically the same things and how evil it all is then i envy you.

being slightly responsible for killing a few hundred kids will be one of the least harmful things i do all day compared to the normal toil my daily routine brings the people of the earth.

so for anyone that is self aware enough to see what they cause it is either joke about it or do the world a favor and eat a bullet.

enjoy your morning. lulz.

Something that I have noticed a lot is that people posting seem to assume that the US is intentionally targeting these children that died in these strikes. That is simply not the case.

If you are going to say that the US government is evil and doesn't care about children dying then you need to realize that even if we didn't give two shits about the children dying, we would still consider the tactical blunder that would be the result of a policy that openly targeted children in drone strikes. We prefer to get the support of the locals and we are not going to get that support if we are constantly blowing up their children without restraint.

We are already painted as the enemy by propaganda and there are conspiracy theories that the CIA shot Malala as a front so we can get justification for more drone strikes. Just because there is a conspiracy saying that it is happening doesn't mean that it actually is happening. ISIS and the Taliban, on the other hand, will kill women and children that they think are helping Americans. When I was in Iraq a few years ago, we had a crane owner working for us and he was helping us build checkpoints. The insurgents found out and not only killed him, but his wife and his children.

The author is a college student in California who probably never even toured Syria let alone do research in the field.

I'd compare the article to the mindless ramblings of my eldest kid on her blog. At least, my kid bases her stuff on first-hand experience.

Sometimes I think perhaps the usual apathetic stance of "who cares, it's been happening for 1000s of years, etc.." the majority of people have towards such sad news is potentially building up bad karma that is being paid back indirectly through police brutality, racism, income inequality, etc..

I think we should, at the very least, feel sad and express a little bit of concern in our responses to such news rather than being simply apathetic.

Most people aren't taking the stance that they don't care. What a lot of people are doing is question the sources stating that we are indiscriminately killing children in drone strikes.

Trust me, I am all about taking out the enemy, but I don't want to see a child killed in the process and the vast majority of people that are for drone strikes feel the same way.

In this case, I hope we're not disingenuous, in our heart, when we dismiss sources other than the mainstream media's narrative without genuinely and pro-actively put a small effort in researching the subject.

I don't understand people's obsessions with USA, envy more likely..I bet all you dweebs are in a country that is part of the coalition...yet you only want to cry about the USA....using a "source" more than likely made up by people just a silly as yall. I'm sure innocents have died, part of war. But to constantly blame US when US isn't the only one fighting there is just ignorance.

Ariabad, you should worry more about your own country than the US so much.

Unless one of the kids' names is Cecil, no one cares.

Well, I don't think anybody is in a position to say this was done on purpose but instead as collateral damage of going after intended targets. Not trying to excuse it, understand the "it creates exteremists" and that bullshit. But curiously, certainly the religious extremists in those countries have killed more children in more overt acts against them. If the the general population still hates America more, they have their priorities in a mess.

Here's a picture of ISIS just before blowing a child's head off, but, you know, America is the real terrorist or whatever...

...in Mosul, ISIS is taking the heads of children and putting them on spikes to decorate the city. Now, I'm not excusing American foreign policy. Hell, I think this mess of destablizing the region started with ousting Saddam. Even if US foreign policy can't be open about it, I say the world is better off supporting secular dictators in Islamic countries, otherwise they'll just choose leadership by who is a bigger Muslim and that's just shown to be disastrous. Maybe we should look at our disastrous foreign policy. After all, we armed ISIS in support of overthrowing Syria's secular dictator, that needs to be addressed.

@lamprey263: That's......horrible.

Ignoring the dumb bit about attacking the source (despite it appearing in a Guardian article) I thought your post was reasonable. Until you mentioned torture. If you were actually knowledgeable on this topic or heck, took a 10 second Google search you'd see thousands of articles done on how ineffective torture is to gaining actual intelligence. Here'safew. In case you feel like trying to discredit the sources once again you'll notice one of the links is from the WSJ, a right-wing paper.

@lamprey263 said:

Well, I don't think anybody is in a position to say this was done on purpose but instead as collateral damage of going after intended targets. Not trying to excuse it, understand the "it creates exteremists" and that bullshit. But curiously, certainly the religious extremists in those countries have killed more children in more overt acts against them. If the the general population still hates America more, they have their priorities in a mess.

Here's a picture of ISIS just before blowing a child's head off, but, you know, America is the real terrorist or whatever...

...in Mosul, ISIS is taking the heads of children and putting them on spikes to decorate the city. Now, I'm not excusing American foreign policy. Hell, I think this mess of destablizing the region started with ousting Saddam. Even if US foreign policy can't be open about it, I say the world is better off supporting secular dictators in Islamic countries, otherwise they'll just choose leadership by who is a bigger Muslim and that's just shown to be disastrous. Maybe we should look at our disastrous foreign policy. After all, we armed ISIS in support of overthrowing Syria's secular dictator, that needs to be addressed.

If the US is responsible for arming ISIS, as you yourself admit in the last sentence of your post, then that child is ultimately Obama's victim.

The United States of America blew that baby's head off by proxy.

If America wasn't involved in the first place, ISIS wouldn't even exist - so it would in fact, be rainbows and unicorns.

Seems like all we're capable of doing is bombing and droning, which is proven to be ineffective because ISIS is mixed with civilians. By bombing ISIS and killing innocents, we're not doing significant damage to them but we are fueling their cause.

If ISIS grew, it will primarily become Europe's and the Middle East's problem, not a problem for us overseas. And it's not a problem they're above handling themselves. The real problem is that we care too much - thus this relatively small group is having way too much of an influence on the USA's policies. For the U.S.A. to actually stop ISIS, we would have to send our army back to the middle-east and occupy territory again. If we did that, ISIS flees to Syria - then what? Putin isn't letting us come in there. Are we going to war with Russia too?

We are simply investing ourselves in a conflict that isn't going to get better by us directly interfering. These small guerrilla-type wars are basically designed to drain major resources. Stomping them out is simply too complicated, to the point of where it's just not worth it. U.S.A. is going to perpetually be doing this same shit forever, and our reputation will continue to go down the gutter as long as we are stationed in Middle-Eastern countries. Yet while we're dealing with infinite amounts of internal problems with our country (education getting worse, quality of life going down, corrupt police and politics, etc.), we're spending absolutely absurd amounts of money on external conflicts that mean jack shit to us.

Going by that theory, it is perfectly okay to blame a store clerk or bartender if someone they served alcohol to turned around and killed someone in a drunk driving accident.

The clerk or bartender may have gave the drunk driver the alcohol, but they didn't force them to drive drunk, just like the US didn't force ISIS terrorists to shoot a child.