Bush drone attacks targeted mourners and rescuers.

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...

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."

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

Who started it matters, too.

Oh dear 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

[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, 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.

[AVGWarhawk]

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

Well it did according to the movie.

[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.