US drone war kills up to 168 children in Pakistan

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

While yes you can't blame all the problems of the Middle East on the US, the fact remains that the United States government DID support dictaror regimes. Hell it was our own CIA that trained Osama Bin Laden and many of his early followers during the late 70's/early 80's. Our own government taught them the skills they needed so they could fight the Soviet Union, back then everyone was calling Bin Laden a freedom fighter. No joke it's the truth. And later on Bin Laden being the SOB that he was turned and used his training against us and targeted innocent civilains, see the government doesn't have any idea what it's doing!

And it was our government that put Saddam Hussein and many other Middle Eastern dictators into power. Our government still supports some of them today, including ones that kill millions of their own people. Now again it's not entirely the US governments fault but they definately had a hand in many of the conflicts that go on in that part of the world.

ShadowMoses900

Uhh actuallly no....Bin Laden back then clearly hated western countries just as much as he hated the Soviet Union. It was just that we were doing the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing back then. We knew he was dangerous but we didn't care at the time and just chose to ignore it.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="0Hamburgher"] When did the U.S. do anything like this in Canada though? And when were the Canadians too incompetent to clean up their own crap?

0Hamburgher

Uhh actuallly no....Bin Laden back then clearly hated western countries just as much as he hated the Soviet Union. It was just that we were doing the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing back then. We knew he was dangerous but we didn't care at the time and just chose to ignore it.

ShadowMoses900

To be fair, it should be pointed out that very little, if any, direct US military aid found its way into Osama's hands during the Soviet-Afghan war. The US preferred dealing with their known Punjab connections, who in turn dealt with local Afghan commanders. Osama was an Arab; an outsider. He was also considered an amateur by the Americans and the Pakistanis at the time. Osama's impact on the Afghan-Soviet war was negligible, which was the most probable source for his deepseated anger towards the United States.

Osama became a player during the Afghan civil war after the Soviet withdrawal. It was then that the Pakistani intelligence service, eager to find a way to control Afghanistan, made Osama and the Taliban the international terrorists that they turned in to.

I know I was quoting myself. You said "FALSE" and then stated your opinion.0Hamburgher

[QUOTE="0Hamburgher"]I know I was quoting myself. You said "FALSE" and then stated your opinion.dsmccracken

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="0Hamburgher"]I know I was quoting myself. You said "FALSE" and then stated your opinion.0Hamburgher

[QUOTE="0Hamburgher"]

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] You're losing me. Your quote: "You said that the U.S. wouldn't follow terrorists into a richer country that had the power to tell the U.S. to **** off and mind its own business." I said the opposite of that claim. Am I just not getting you, or are you misspeaking?dsmccracken

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="0Hamburgher"] I am misspeaking i suppose. I'm saying now that you had STATED YOUR OWN OPINION WHILE DISMISSING MINE. Pakistan is a poor country, and if it was rich as Canada, then the U.S. wouldn't be as active in Pakistan as it is.

0Hamburgher

Woah Woah Woah be truthful with your titles. 168 children were killed over a span of 7 yrs. Not all in one event from one drone like you make it out to be.

[QUOTE="Blaze787"]

The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.

Famiking

I hope everyone knows we try to avoid unnecessary casualties when employing ordnance from an RPA, but sometimes casualties such as children happen especially in a war like this one, and the RPA community is also still new and growing.

Woah Woah Woah be truthful with your titles. 168 children were killed over a span of 7 yrs. Not all in one event from one drone like you make it out to be.

MrMe1000

[QUOTE="MrMe1000"]

Woah Woah Woah be truthful with your titles. 168 children were killed over a span of 7 yrs. Not all in one event from one drone like you make it out to be.

t0taldj

[QUOTE="t0taldj"][QUOTE="MrMe1000"]

Woah Woah Woah be truthful with your titles. 168 children were killed over a span of 7 yrs. Not all in one event from one drone like you make it out to be.

LJS9502_basic

The most conservative estimates for civilian casualties from both wars is around 80,000 civilian casualties. That's around 27 times more the people in 9/11 and those are the most conservative since the US refuses to count them for obvious reasons.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="t0taldj"] It IS truthful. Perhaps you should pay more attention. It says drone WAR and not ATTACK.kuraimen

The most conservative estimates for civilian casualties from both wars is around 80,000 civilian casualties. That's around 27 times more the people in 9/11 and those are the most conservative since the US refuses to count them for obvious reasons.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Since 2004...so we're looking at 7 years....which if you break it down...is not that many casualties per attack.LJS9502_basic

The most conservative estimates for civilian casualties from both wars is around 80,000 civilian casualties. That's around 27 times more the people in 9/11 and those are the most conservative since the US refuses to count them for obvious reasons.

The statement that always makes me facepalm is "well thats war sadely".. Yes thats war when its unavoidable.. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan war are wars of choice.. In these types of wars, there is no excuse or condoning these kinds of losses.. Especially when the US pays so close attention to tragic losses no matter how small from hostile forces.. If the US really cared about "saving" people or really most countries for that matter.. There are multiple different avenues that could be went down that could save far more.. The fact of the matter are these places hold political and economic importance.. And really only is a extension of the imperialism the West has been flexing on regions like the Middle East for a century now.. The sad thing is.. Neither party has hardly a different policy or outlook overall.. The only politicians I hear that speak out against this kind of crap are shunned such as men like Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter.. Newsflash, we can't call ourselves the good guys, the voice of reasoning, the compassioante side, when we have this kind of callous hypocrisy at the forefront. You can be one or the other, you can't have both worlds.

sSubZerOo

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

The most conservative estimates for civilian casualties from both wars is around 80,000 civilian casualties. That's around 27 times more the people in 9/11 and those are the most conservative since the US refuses to count them for obvious reasons.

kuraimen

There may be that many civilian casualties but the US makes a very small count of those.

Why can't America just leave Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are not winning this war and the only thing that will happen is that more people will die. It's just like Vietnam!

Kind of a misleading title, I thought you were talking about a single strike.

Anyways, I've never approved of drone attacks. I hate the idea of de-humanizing war. I may be all for guns and a strong military, but having machines do the fighting for us is wrong. It's one thing to man a tank, it's another thing to fly a remote control death machine with no real certainty of your enemy.

I understand why they are used, but I don't approve. If we are going to attack them, we should do it with boots on the ground in some form or another.

Wasdie

I agree.

the United States Army can do no wrong it seems...

'it happens... it's war'

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The statement that always makes me facepalm is "well thats war sadely".. Yes thats war when its unavoidable.. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan war are wars of choice.. In these types of wars, there is no excuse or condoning these kinds of losses.. Especially when the US pays so close attention to tragic losses no matter how small from hostile forces.. If the US really cared about "saving" people or really most countries for that matter.. There are multiple different avenues that could be went down that could save far more.. The fact of the matter are these places hold political and economic importance.. And really only is a extension of the imperialism the West has been flexing on regions like the Middle East for a century now.. The sad thing is.. Neither party has hardly a different policy or outlook overall.. The only politicians I hear that speak out against this kind of crap are shunned such as men like Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter.. Newsflash, we can't call ourselves the good guys, the voice of reasoning, the compassioante side, when we have this kind of callous hypocrisy at the forefront. You can be one or the other, you can't have both worlds.

tocool340

The REAL question that this thread begs to ask is:

Why do the Taliban use children as human shields?

dkrustyklown

nope

the real question is how can children actually be considered an ineffective shield against the U.S

[QUOTE="dkrustyklown"]

The REAL question that this thread begs to ask is:

Why do the Taliban use children as human shields?

BiancaDK

nope

the real question is how can children actually be considered an ineffective shield against the U.S

Ineffective shield?LJS9502_basic

the targets are getting bombed regardless, so speaking from a defensive strategy point of view, it's pretty inefficient against U.S strikes

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ineffective shield?BiancaDK

the targets are getting bombed regardless, so speaking from a defensive strategy point of view, it's pretty inefficient against U.S strikes

[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

The statement that always makes me facepalm is "well thats war sadely".. Yes thats war when its unavoidable.. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan war are wars of choice.. In these types of wars, there is no excuse or condoning these kinds of losses.. Especially when the US pays so close attention to tragic losses no matter how small from hostile forces.. If the US really cared about "saving" people or really most countries for that matter.. There are multiple different avenues that could be went down that could save far more.. The fact of the matter are these places hold political and economic importance.. And really only is a extension of the imperialism the West has been flexing on regions like the Middle East for a century now.. The sad thing is.. Neither party has hardly a different policy or outlook overall.. The only politicians I hear that speak out against this kind of crap are shunned such as men like Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter.. Newsflash, we can't call ourselves the good guys, the voice of reasoning, the compassioante side, when we have this kind of callous hypocrisy at the forefront. You can be one or the other, you can't have both worlds.

LJS9502_basic

Useless military up to no good. Just as useless are the ones trying to justify the killings of the innocents, whether indiscriminate or not. I guess that attitude is to be expected since many other Americans have their chin & nose high up in the air from killing many civilians in Japan with the nuclear bombs

The ME does want the US oil money. And some countries are friendly with the US for that reason. Because some terrorist groups...which aren't legitimate governments nor countries don't like doesn't mean we should let them free. More civilians...yes children have been killed by the insurgents. And even taking the US out of the violence in the ME....you see many other conflicts amongst the people of the ME. So blaming the mess on the US is a bit simplistic IMO.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Do you? All wars are war of choices so basically what he said is war has collateral damage and civilian deaths happen. As for his last few statements......I suggest reading up on how some other countries conduct war to see the US does, indeed, do it's best to limit collateral deaths. The reason many happen in the ME/current situation is insurgents who use human shields. Why not decry those guys? Oh right....it's better to blame the US for the actions of insurgents.:|LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The ME does want the US oil money. And some countries are friendly with the US for that reason. Because some terrorist groups...which aren't legitimate governments nor countries don't like doesn't mean we should let them free. More civilians...yes children have been killed by the insurgents. And even taking the US out of the violence in the ME....you see many other conflicts amongst the people of the ME. So blaming the mess on the US is a bit simplistic IMO.Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The ME does want the US oil money. And some countries are friendly with the US for that reason. Because some terrorist groups...which aren't legitimate governments nor countries don't like doesn't mean we should let them free. More civilians...yes children have been killed by the insurgents. And even taking the US out of the violence in the ME....you see many other conflicts amongst the people of the ME. So blaming the mess on the US is a bit simplistic IMO.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Of course i'm not blaming the whole conflict on the US but i am saying that they are not guilt free. What some people think is that Al Qaeda attacked the US because they're jealous of their freedom, the attack was unprovoked etc etc. That's what i'm arguing against. The misinformation goes as far as people thinking that 9/11 was the start of conflict.

Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] No what I have pointed since the beginning is the hypocrisy of it all. This thread is about civilians killed by drones from the US. I consider insurgents who kill civilian murderers and US forces who kill civilians murderers. No matter if they do it using advanced technological means or blowing themselves up. It is murder and should be considered like that.kuraimen

And a reason is a justification. You gave justification. Personally I find use civilians as shields to have ZERO justification.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Depends on how you view it I suppose. Since Al Qaeda is not a formal recognized government then I see them as starting this up. Now if the ME countries had an issue and decided to deal with it.....(I'd suggest diplomacy first) then your viewpoint would have some credence. But a terrorist organization doesn't have credibility.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]What the heck does their credibility have to do with anything i said?kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not quite. I've never seen you post anything but anti American comments no matter the topic. And you do give justification for terrorist attacks. Including in this very thread. When someone has that bias.....most people don't give much weight to their opinions. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] There is a difference....or there should be to everyone....between the relations between two countries....and an organization not officially recognized that just creates "terror". Or don't you see that?

LJS9502_basic

His post had nothing to do with trusting Al Qaeda or not.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] I never said I agree with terrorist attacks, that's you twisting my words as always. I explained why terrorists attack that's different and put it into perspective. If the papers were turned you people would be calling the drones terrorists and the 9/11 perpetrators heroes most certainly.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Turned? You mean a war? The US doesn't put their military amongst civilians and then fire at the adversary.LJS9502_basic