Bush drone attacks targeted mourners and rescuers.

[Rockstar]

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/.com

NOT, actually it was the Nobel Peace Prize winner

[GoldenRivet]

Who cares who it was?

well played.

Let God sort them:salute:

[magicstix]

If they're combatants I don't care if they're mourning or rescuing... Though that was a nice switcheroo there! :DL

[Tribesman]

Who cares who it was?

well played.

Let God sort them
There were probably pillocks in the middle east saying that after 9/11.

[Catfish]

Bush drones ? It is worldwide percepted as US drones, this is not about a president, at least not outside of the US.
I guess the CIA does not give a sh!t about who temporarily is president, of the USA ?
Yeah it's not a war crime since the US is not at war with Pakistan ?
Defending freedom [sic!] all over the world. Whose freedom ?

They kill innocent civilians as well (282 drone attacks?), they do it abroad in countries not at war with, without even knowing of its government, and kill bystanding civilians, and sometimes only them (since it just was a miscalculation, or a not quite perfect strike).
Kill from above, godlike, no trial, collateral damage obviously intended for deterrence or just not cared about.
I am sure this is as legal as it gets.

Or is this only a clever Obama trick to win the hearts of the republican voters ?
:hmmm:

Well, drones are relatively cheap and even RC-steered very small things might do a lot of damage. "They" are really learning, and fast.
Interesting times ahead.

[Tribesman]

Or is this only a clever Obama trick to win the hearts of the republican voters ?

Its a clever trick to show that some people are the same as the al-qaida supporters.

[Catfish]

Its a clever trick to show that some people are the same as the al-qaida supporters.

You mean, in choosing of their means of killing ? :shifty:

Really, after all those promises of Obama and what "he" does now - but certainly it 's not him alone. A lot of presidential advisers are from the cold war days. As said before the guys who have the real power see the presidents come and go.

On the other hand i cannot quite imagine, that current republican supporters and a republican president would not have used drones, to kill insurgents abroad ? So this has a bit of hyocrisy ..

[Tribesman]

You mean, in choosing of their means of killing ?
No, I mean in being brainless pillocks.
Its rather telling that Rivets line of "thought" comes straight from some historical crazy "religious" tossers who liked indiscriminate murder, which makes him just like the goatbotherers in talibanland.

[MH]

Really, after all those promises of Obama and what "he" does now - but certainly it 's not him alone. A lot of presidential advisers are from the cold war days. As said before the guys who have the real power see the presidents come and go.


Maybe its just it or maybe as a president he has a bit more insight than a next guy that reads NYT or watches Fox news.
Its just a naive theory but worth taking into consideration as well.


I'm pretty sure that there are some considerations about the human and material coast of such conflict vs doing simply nothing.
Oh yeah... it possibly all about pleasing some blood thirsty republicans or/and making money on military spending.
Is it Soros ?

[GoldenRivet]

Guy in office building armed with ball point pen and flash drive with a desire outsell the competing firm

Guy in desert armed with AK-47 and RPG launcher with a desire to murder everyone from the competing religion




nope... no comparison, sorry

missile away:salute:

[Tribesman]

nope... no comparison, sorry

Your foolishness has undone you already.


Guy in office ....

Guy in desert ....

Who cares who it was?
Kill 'em all
that puts you firmly on the same level as these nice people...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-GzAQWTsRI

[Jimbuna]

Interesting article :hmmm:

[tater]

So we were at the same level of the germans and japanese in ww2 then, too?

We area bombed. Our technique was heavy with "spillage" (the ww2 term for "collateral damage"). In many cases "spillage" was actually the point (RAF fire bombing in the ETO, and US firebombing in the PTO).

So by the same logic, the US, or anyone who supported the USAAF/RAF, was just the same as the enemy. Do I have that right?

[Tribesman]

So we were at the same level of the germans and japanese in ww2 then, too?

errrrr,.....that would depend on what specificly you was talking about. On some things yes, on other things no.

We area bombed.
What has that got to do with the price of cheese?

So by the same logic, the US, or anyone who supported the USAAF/RAF, was just the same as the enemy. Do I have that right?
Errrrrr....no, nice attempt but you had better get that thing back in the field before the crows have a feast.

[tater]

The price of cheese. Right.

You said:

Kill 'em all
that puts you firmly on the same level as these nice people...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-GzAQWTsRI

The implication is that anyone in favor of attacking targets regardless of civilian deaths in that part of the world is no different than palestinian scumbags. I was not particularly upset when I first saw that video, because I already assumed (correctly, in retrospect, based on polling) that most muslims thought that way about us anyway. Remember that the point of the 9-11 attacks was to kill civilians, so celebrating that is celebrating that intentional attack. Collateral damage is unintentional. Motive matters. Who started it matters, too.

My point (which stands) is that in ww2, we (the allies) had precisely the same "bomb the needed targets, damn the casualties" attitude generally as espoused in the post that you responded to. This was a generally held view. The USAAF tried to mitigate civilian deaths with their insistence on "daylight, precision bombing," but they knew full well that "precise" meant 80% of the bombs hit within a few miles of the aim point. Least they tried, not that anyone with the prospect of fighting on the ground cared. So if that's a "bad" or "wrong" view to have now, it was just as wrong then.

Vs a suicidal enemy that was preparing to use women and children as combatants, and spread it's war industry literally into homes, we gave up on trying to avoid civilians, since the line between combatant and legitimate target became blurry. Even though we are in the same situation now, we still try rather harder than we need to to avoid "spillage."

[Tribesman]

The implication is that anyone in favor of attacking targets regardless of civilian deaths in that part of the world is no different than palestinian scumbags
the implication is that anyone in favour of killing people simply because of where they live is exactly the same as the people cheering simply because some people in America got killed.

Collateral damage is unintentional. Motive matters.
wow?????? have you even followed to the story:doh:

Who started it matters, too.

Oh dear:88) doesn't one of your republican presidential candidates point out a little too honestly who may have started it.

My point (which stands) is that in ww2,
Your point doesn't stand at all, WW2 might as well be on another planet, its like saying slavery is Ok because it was in some places in 1859:doh:

[AngusJS]

Up to 5,000 people attended Khwaz Wali Mehsud’s funeral that afternoon, including not only Taliban fighters but many civilians. US drones struck again (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?ref=global-home), killing up to 83 people. As many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children and four tribal leaders.Way to win hearts and minds.

Truly, a new low. :nope:

[AVGWarhawk]

its like saying slavery is Ok because it was in some places in 1859

Well it did according to the movie. :stare:

[MH]

The amount of damage caused to civilians is much lesser that in WW2 and its not even comparable.
Its seems though that every civilian that dies becomes a political issue for some scavengers.

I'm against killing of civilians at any coast but i hate the cynical use of it when it happens.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I can (to limit) accept civilian casualties caused by first strike. What I can not accept is striking against rescue workers. There is no way to ensure that everyone (if any) who comes to aid is terrorist.

[Catfish]

There are no civilians. Plant a weapon next to him and he's an insurgent.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f66_1223515331

But .. this happens in every war. It is just so that there are media which are able to inform people as it happens, unlike in former times where a few sparse military reports would sweep all under the carpet of a reason of state.
But certainly, from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, pi**ing on Taliban corpses to drones killing civilians as "collateral damage", this is indeed not the way "to win hearts", or build up a country. But maybe the latter is not the point.

To compare the death of a US citizen to an Afghani or Iraqi and then saying "those scumbags do not count" is not only inhuman, racist and xenophobic, but plain dumb. :nope:

[Tribesman]

Kraznyi & Catfish.You are almost there.
Take a step back to get a view.
Fenian bastards were often attempting the "double tap" attacks(the OP link provides sources where the FBI goes on about Hamas and al-qaida doing the same crap). It is unfortunately a tried and tested scumbag terrorist action in the modern world
To take GRs "point" of "kill 'em all" it would be exactly the same "logic" as if Britain was blowing up some random pub in Boston or New York in response to a shopping centre being blown up in Cheshire(and then blowing up any decent bystanders for good measure)
To me it is a simple point that it doesn't matter if the initial action is from china somalia america finland ireland or any other place, it is still wrong and inexcusable to anyone with a working brain.
Likewise the noted response, no matter who does it or where it comes from is equally wrong and inexcusable....unless you have brain freeze and cannot think beyond whichever flag you cling to.

[AVGWarhawk]

it is still wrong and inexcusable

I would agree.

no matter who does it or where it comes from is equally wrong and inexcusable


I would agree.


But stuff happens....

[krashkart]

If it deters the towelheads from blowing up my countrymen and our allies abroad, by all means let the drone program continue for as long as the killing needs to be done. No service has been done to mankind through suicide bombings -- are indiscriminate drone strikes any worse?


I am sure this is as legal as it gets.

Once the right voices are heard by the UN that might change. (I should hope for some future ROE regulation) In the meantime... we stick with what we have to work with. Sucky as the situation is, this is just how things are right now. $#&! 'em!


EDIT: The only reason Americans fear drones is because we fear that they might someday be used against us.

[MH]

There are no civilians. Plant a weapon next to him and he's an insurgent.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f66_1223515331

I'm not trying to justify anything but your problem is that you try to relativize everything by videos like this.
I believe its not a policy or standard conduct of military.
The purpose,methods or effectiveness of war in Afghanistan can be debated ,the problem is that incidents like this are prone to happen regardless of the fact weather you believe this war is just or not.
As long as this war need is fought people will get killed.


To compare the death of a US citizen to an Afghani or Iraqi and then saying "those scumbags do not count" is not only inhuman, racist and xenophobic, but plain dumb. :nope:

You know...i live in a place surrounded by those "scumbags" and when i look at ME as much as i try to exercise my brain i come to conclusion that we are better.
The sad thing is that their own "freedom fighters" or leaders consider their own(civilian) blood to be very cheap when it serves the cause of being free to be oppressed by their own people and live in dark ages theocracies.
I have no problem with that....maybe i'm selfish or maybe just so much liberal...as long as they don't try to export those views in my direction its all ok with me.
I know I'm generalising here but going into details does not change the overall picture that ME Afghanistan or Iran are...what their are.

The issue is not civilian casualties or harts and minds.
It is weather USA wants to deal or can deal with this bunch of fanatic crackheads who can slaughter their own Muslim fellows to pass the massage about how decent human should live his life... without mach of debate.

Oh yeah they are debating now over Syria for a year-a great friend of freedom fighters, defendant of Muslim human rights and great partner for peace.
It takes so long probably because USA or Israel has nothing to do with the massacre:nope:

At least they do debate this time, unlike what happened under previous Syrian anti-imperialist dear leader.

Catfish don't feel so bad about yourself.
You are lucky to be where you are and you are much better and better off.

[krashkart]

As long as this war need is fought people will get killed.

Such is the purpose of war no matter what side you're on.

You know...i live in a place surrounded by those "scumbags" and when i look at ME as much as i try to exercise my brain i come to conclusion that we are better.
The sad thing is that their own "freedom fighters" or leaders consider their own(civilian) blood to be very cheap when it serves the cause of being free to be oppressed by their own people and live in dark ages theocracies.

They control their people through fear of death. I wouldn't have a problem with that so much if they didn't try to unleash that ideology on the rest of us.


I know I'm generalising here but going into details does not change the overall picture that ME Afghanistan or Iran are...what their are.

A pack of rabid psychotic primates. I don't like thinking that way, but that's how it is these days. If they want to generalize and say that all Americans should die, I take that to mean that they want my family dead. Such was proven to me eleven years ago in NYC. My family has wished no ill upon the region or their system of beliefs. So why should my grandmother or my youngest cousin, be slaughtered? Ideology is the master of the victimized. A quick acid facial doesn't hurt either, from what I've heard. :nope:

[Catfish]

Catfish don't feel so bad about yourself.
You are lucky to be where you are and you are much better and better off.

:D lol apart from the second-last sentence, a good post i can understand. Yes, certainly we are better off or so i think. But apart from those Taliban there are muslims who would never kill anyone, and are pretty angry about their own fanatics. But they are also killed.

I just do not like those euphemistically-called asymmetric wars.
More than 8,000 civilians were killed in the last 4 years, in Afghanistan.
And more than 240,000, in Iraq.
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/government_employee/06/22/civilian-death-statistics-in-iraq-afghanistan-compared/
This does not mean that - especially in Iraq - all civilians were killed by troops from abroad - but was that worth it ? For oil ? As a retaliation ?

Imperiums are not founded with timidity, or so someone once said.
I just thought we would be more advanced, when we are already so much better off, comfort-wise and intellectually.

Thanks,
Catfish

[MH]

:D lol apart from the second-last sentence, a good post i can understand. Yes, certainly we are better off or so i think. But apart from those Taliban there are muslims who would never kill anyone, and are pretty angry about their own fanatics. But they are also killed.


I really don't know which Taliban you are talking about.
Overall picture is that they use fear ruthlessly for greater cause when they have to.




This does not mean that - especially in Iraq - all civilians were killed by troops from abroad - but was that worth it ? For oil ? As a retaliation ?

Imperiums are not founded with timidity, or so someone once said.
I just thought we would be more advanced, when we are already so much better off, comfort-wise and intellectually.

Thanks,
Catfish
So you better check the data...majority of the slaughter is due to civil war suicide bombers trucks and so on.
A struggle for tribal dominance and of course making Iraqis miss old good uncle Saddam(they had at least some order in their life then).
Blaming USA for all the chaos was the game...and spoiling any attempt to restore civil life...and poor Iraqi citizen by power of reality had no choice but to admit that life was much better without USA.
The kids that grew up in this chaos made excellent cannon fodder as extremists and so on wheels keep turning.
Yes they outsmarted USA in their ruthless and determination.

[krashkart]

I just do not like those euphemistically-called asymmetric wars.

Asymmetric war means a war fought in a manner unconventional to the Cold War standard, which back in the day meant men and machinery against men and machinery. These days war is being fought under different conventions.

244,000 civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan over a ten-year period; compared to over two million civilian deaths in Korea on both sides of the 38th Parallel between the years 1950 and 1953. Do the math. :O:

I agree that the human race should be further along than this. But again, this is just how we are. Animals.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree that the human race should be further along than this. But again, this is just how we are. Animals.

We have been people at war for a very long time. It is almost if not actual the only way we know how to live. Sad really.

[joegrundman]

I agree that the human race should be further along than this. But again, this is just how we are. Animals.

love it!

[Catfish]

Asymmetric war means a war fought in a manner unconventional to the Cold War standard, which back in the day meant men and machinery against men and ,,,[...]

Yep i know that, however i intentionally waged the asymmetric on the numbers of people, killed on either side - this statistic, you know.

I agree that the human race should be further along than this. But again, this is just how we are. Animals.

Yes. And all animals are equal. So we are all the same, regardless with what ideology we kill others. Some are obviously more equal, than others.
Does any scholar still read "Animal Farm", today ?

[Tribesman]

A pack of rabid psychotic primates. I don't like thinking that way, but that's how it is these days.
But it isn't like that these days or any days, it is only ever like that for people who think that way.
Which is why people who think that way are exactly the same as the al-qaida supporters and why people who think like that can be directly compared with people who were happy about the attacks on 9/11.
Sad but true.

[MH]

Some more 1 c philosophy:
Who can ever deny evolution since we are like bunch of apes.
"Throw crap" dialog box would be great enhancement.

[krashkart]

Yep i know that, however i intentionally waged the asymmetric on the numbers of people, killed on either side - this statistic, you know.

I see where you're going with that now. I was working the other way around. :hmmm:


Yes. And all animals are equal. So we are all the same, regardless with what ideology we kill others. Some are obviously more equal, than others.
Does any scholar still read "Animal Farm", today ?

I guess one of mankind's inherent flaws is to accept the things that he cannot change. We are what we are, and hopefully someday we will find a path out of this mess. Until then we are what we are: lines in the sand contested by ideological and political challenges. People die over such idiocy, and in some places (MH's region, for instance) that is a fact of everyday existence. We have struggled with this for so long. How do we change our nature?

But it isn't like that these days or any days, it is only ever like that for people who think that way.
Which is why people who think that way are exactly the same as the al-qaida supporters and why people who think like that can be directly compared with people who were happy about the attacks on 9/11.
Sad but true.

I'll have to think on that a bit, Tribesman. Some of what you said makes sense, some of it seems to contradict a little. But if I figured it out right a hypocritical statement was made somewhere and there is only one person to fix it. But how does an entire species right its ship when it can barely sail in the first place? That's what frustrates me the most -- we have no answers as a whole.

[soopaman2]

May I ask?

Whats with the title?
Sarcasm. A shot across the leftist bow?

I think I getting a good Bush bashing thread, and you smash Barry.

Not being insulting, just wondering why your choice of thread title when you were bashing the current president.

Oh I get it, Demoncrats blame repugnantcans for everything, yeah, that has not ever been done before.

So lets not trash Bush, such a perfect president compared to Obama.:yeah:

Edit: I can smash both, no bias or inhibitions here.

Note: I love your sig quote joegrundman

[Tribesman]

I'll have to think on that a bit
It isn't that complicated, though on a personal level many factors can get in the way(understandably so).
In essence it is as simple as making sure you are not painting fine details with a very very broad brush.

That's what frustrates me the most -- we have no answers as a whole.
Life is about looking at the questions and thinking about possible answers, the right answers are a problem to ever get near, but the wrong answers can often be clearly identified