US drone war kills up to 168 children in Pakistan

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

If their main purpose was to kill civilians they would have attacked a dam or something like that that could have potentially killed millions of people. Their targets were highly symbolic.

airshocker

How does the symbolism matter? They ONLY attacked civilians in the WTC. How is that justified?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

If their main purpose was to kill civilians they would have attacked a dam or something like that that could have potentially killed millions of people. Their targets were highly symbolic.

airshocker

How does the symbolism matter? They ONLY attacked civilians in the WTC. How is that justified?

How about destabilize the US economy and moral so they can stop supporting their military? Attacking civilian targets to destroy the moral of a people has been used before in war including by the US.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] A widely used euphemisms is still an euphemism. Besides that definition of military target is so general that you can pretty much justify attacking anything using it. Including the Pentagon, the Capitol and the WTC.kuraimen

How about destabilize the US economy and moral so they can stop supporting their military? Attacking civilian targets to destroy the moral of a people has been used before in war including by the US.

The WTC was an important economical center in the US as well as a symbol of their economic power. You destroy that and you damage them economically and psychologically.kuraimen

That doesn't matter. It's still not a legitimate military target.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

If their main purpose was to kill civilians they would have attacked a dam or something like that that could have potentially killed millions of people. Their targets were highly symbolic.

LJS9502_basic

How does the symbolism matter? They ONLY attacked civilians in the WTC. How is that justified?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]The WTC was an important economical center in the US as well as a symbol of their economic power. You destroy that and you damage them economically and psychologically.airshocker

That doesn't matter. It's still not a legitimate military target.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

How does the symbolism matter? They ONLY attacked civilians in the WTC. How is that justified?

kuraimen

And don't use past history to excuse 2000s...:|

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I don't see a justification for the WTC.LJS9502_basic

How about destabilize the US economy and moral so they can stop supporting their military? Attacking civilian targets to destroy the moral of a people has been used before in war including by the US.

Americans didn't follow the british engagement rules when they were fighting for their independence. Does that make them terrorists?kuraimen

:lol: Nice strawman, but that's to be expected from you whenever your argument gets torn to ribbons.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] It's not. If one wants to engage in a war there are certain rules to follow. Terrorists do not follow rules nor fight a military. They attack (or use as shields) civilians including women and children.LJS9502_basic

And don't use past history to excuse 2000s...:|

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

How about destabilize the US economy and moral so they can stop supporting their military? Attacking civilian targets to destroy the moral of a people has been used before in war including by the US.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Americans didn't follow the british engagement rules when they were fighting for their independence. Does that make them terrorists?kuraimen

And don't use past history to excuse 2000s...:|

According to whom? you?kuraimen

According to the Geneva Convention which I just linked you.

Any attack must be justified by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. If there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. They may also have protective signs, which may designate it as forbidden to fire on (hospital, monastery/convent, site of cultural or historical importance).Geneva Convention

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Americans didn't follow the british engagement rules when they were fighting for their independence. Does that make them terrorists?airshocker

:lol: Nice strawman, but that's to be expected from you whenever your argument gets torn to ribbons.

I think its time we send everyone home. No more of these attacks.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Americans didn't follow the british engagement rules when they were fighting for their independence. Does that make them terrorists?kuraimen

:lol: Nice strawman, but that's to be expected from you whenever your argument gets torn to ribbons.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]According to whom? you?airshocker

According to the Geneva Convention which I just linked you.

Any attack must be justified by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. If there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. They may also have protective signs, which may designate it as forbidden to fire on (hospital, monastery/convent, site of cultural or historical importance).Geneva Convention

Not strawman, I'm just putting things into perspective. Americans and their definitions of "military targets" and "collateral damage" are used to justify the same kind of atrocities they accuse their enemies of doing. They just change through history for their convenience.kuraimen

You are.

We, on the other hand, are talking about actions taken against us recently, post-Geneva Convention. Everything else is irrelevent.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

:lol: Nice strawman, but that's to be expected from you whenever your argument gets torn to ribbons.

LJS9502_basic

The US actions in the ME are also internationally condemned. Hell even in this thread there are many people condemning them. And yet the US keeps justifying them. And I'm not justifying the actions in 9/11 I'm explaining them, there's a difference. You, on the other hand, are justifying collateral damage.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

If their main purpose was to kill civilians they would have attacked a dam or something like that that could have potentially killed millions of people. Their targets were highly symbolic.

airshocker

How does the symbolism matter? They ONLY attacked civilians in the WTC. How is that justified?

And I just said that that definition is so general that the 9/11 targets can also fit there. And the Geneva Convention was made by industrialized nations. Nobody asked the Taliban or any other small nation without technological means for modern war if they agreed with them.kuraimen

No, it doesn't. It's not even debatable. The WTC didn't contribute to the war effort of the United States, not like the Pentagon or the Capitol Building. When the Taliban doesn't need to use terrorism to stay in power, maybe they can have a seat at the UN. Until then, they're subject to the world's rules.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

According to the Geneva Convention which I just linked you.

[QUOTE="Geneva Convention"]Any attack must be justified by military necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage. If there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian. They may also have protective signs, which may designate it as forbidden to fire on (hospital, monastery/convent, site of cultural or historical importance).kuraimen

That contradicts your previous posts :lol:parkurtommo

How?

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Part of war...now if you can get the adversary to play nice...it won't happen.LJS9502_basic

Come on, we all know better than that. There is no play nice, play fair in war. Each side uses its strong sides to attack the adversary's weak sides.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Not strawman, I'm just putting things into perspective. Americans and their definitions of "military targets" and "collateral damage" are used to justify the same kind of atrocities they accuse their enemies of doing. They just change through history for their convenience.airshocker

You are.

We, on the other hand, are talking about actions taken against us recently, post-Geneva Convention. Everything else is irrelevent.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

If their main purpose was to kill civilians they would have attacked a dam or something like that that could have potentially killed millions of people. Their targets were highly symbolic.

kuraimen

How does the symbolism matter? They ONLY attacked civilians in the WTC. How is that justified?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Not strawman, I'm just putting things into perspective. Americans and their definitions of "military targets" and "collateral damage" are used to justify the same kind of atrocities they accuse their enemies of doing. They just change through history for their convenience.kuraimen

The US actions in the ME are also internationally condemned. Hell even in this thread there are many people condemning them. And yet the US keeps justifying them. And I'm not justifying the actions in 9/11 I'm explaining them, there's a difference. You, on the other hand, are justifying collateral damage.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

If their main purpose was to kill civilians they would have attacked a dam or something like that that could have potentially killed millions of people. Their targets were highly symbolic.

kuraimen

How does the symbolism matter? They ONLY attacked civilians in the WTC. How is that justified?

For the US it is irrelevant because they make the rules so they can always win the game. But there's no reason why anyone should accept that and their collateral damage rhetoric.kuraimen

We're not making rules up. We're talking about recent events. We're not going back a ridiculous amount of time to reinforce floundering arguments.

So it's our fault we have the better technology? I'm not defending the US' actions but come on, that was a bad argument..

DaJuicyMan

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Mafiree

I think killing civilians should be wrong no matter what. Trying to soften the act of murdering civilians by calling it "collateral damage" its whats relative and what's disgusting about all of this. And any group can justify killing any number of people by any means by coming up with terms like those and twisting definitions.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] War is not a soccer match, if you're comparing war with sports and then argue that the Taliban's guerrilla warfare is 'unfair' and 'not nice' then one might argue that the other side is not playing fair too. They are using tanks, airplanes, drones and all sorts of advanced weaponry to defeat the enemy, plus they outnumber them. That's like Team USA showing up on a soccer match with 20 players on the pitch who are over equipped and then complain why the Team Taliban are ignoring the offside rule and fouling players all the time.

Come on, we all know better than that. There is no play nice, play fair in war. Each side uses its strong sides to attack the adversary's weak sides.

Stavrogin_

As for the history of the ME it's a rather twisted complicated matter...and I find depending on what the specific topic is some users have two different opinions as to what part history plays in ME issues.

the taliban andal qaeda really don't get enough love nowadays so i'm glad they have so many defenders in this thread. but i guess the little guy needs someone to stand up for them against big, bad america.

there have been countless more deaths caused by these militants and insurgents than caused by the US. but to me its not just a numbers game, its a question of intent like some other rational people in this thread have already brought up. the way i see it, terrorists are killing our soldiers and civilians so we have a justifiable reason to pursue and kill them. drones are a good way of doing it because it doesn't put our soldiers in danger and so what if its less "personal"? war is about defeating your enemy in the most efficient way possible with the smallest amount of lives lost, and i believe we are attempting to do just that. collateral damage happens and it is sad when any civilian lives are lost, especially children, but that's what happens when militants hide amongst, and protected by, some of the population.

the people who are comparing our intent to that of al qaeda during 9/11 i feel are truly misguided and are either blinded by their hatred of the US or are just ignorant of the facts.

[QUOTE="DaJuicyMan"]So it's our fault we have the better technology? I'm not defending the US' actions but come on, that was a bad argument..

Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] And I just said that that definition is so general that the 9/11 targets can also fit there. And the Geneva Convention was made by industrialized nations. Nobody asked the Taliban or any other small nation without technological means for modern war if they agreed with them.kuraimen

I think killing civilians should be wrong no matter what. Trying to soften the act of murdering civilians by calling it "collateral damage" its whats relative and what's disgusting about all of this. And any group can justify killing any number of people by any means by coming up with terms like those and twisting definitions.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I'm not comparing anything....don't take my posts out of context. Where did I mention sports? It's a fact that when war is waged on owns turf there will be collateral damage. Now without an enemy to fight....war doesn't happen. So unless the enemy stops their aggression....war will continue as will civilian deaths. If you are looking to blame someone....blame those that started the war with aggressive acts toward the US. Otherwise....the cost of war is on their heads. Simple really...*shrugs*LJS9502_basic

International law made by industrialized nations mainly! the most influential of which is the US! Of course the US makes the rules in a big part.kuraimen

He just pointed out that both Pakistan and Afghanistan are a part of it! LOL! Where is this bullying going on, exactly?

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

How does the symbolism matter? They ONLY attacked civilians in the WTC. How is that justified?

Mafiree

Most certainly, only crazy people do things without some kind of justification. That doesn't make them any less disgusting though

According to you...... I contend that killing civilians strikes fear into the opposition and will destroy their will to continue fighting. (not serious)Mafiree

We know the truth. Don't worry.

Its always good to defend the taliban.Whats not to love about complete jackasses anti everything and runs a country with Sharia law and has killed more kids in a day then America (the horrible horrible satan) has killed over a 9 year period.And its only the american satans lies that try to fool people into thinking women have no rights under sharia law.

[QUOTE="Mafiree"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] The WTC was an important economical center in the US as well as a symbol of their economic power. You destroy that and you damage them economically and psychologically.kuraimen

Most certainly, only crazy people do things without some kind of justification. That doesn't make them any less disgusting though

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="Mafiree"] All terrorist acts are justifiable then....... AwesomeLJS9502_basic

Most certainly, only crazy people do things without some kind of justification. That doesn't make them any less disgusting though