1/3 of people killed in Drone Attacks are Civilians

[Stumblingdrunk]

With that civillian deaths can stop millions of humans (especially our own people) from dying

If we were to never drop another bomb on anyone, ever again, it is highly unlikely that it will cost millions of people their lives. Congrats on making an idiotic argument though.

[archibaldcrane]

Ah crap Link's post got buried at the bottom of the last page?

This will not do.

One sec.

[archibaldcrane]

I am not sure anymore if we are on topic, nor am I sure if this has been mentioned. However, I do not care about the above as this is the internet.

With that civillian deaths can stop millions of humans (especially our own people) from dying or having to go to war. Hiroshima is a specific example of this ( I think its hiroshima or it could be nagasaki, anywho its the one where we; bombed off any exits, practically torched their city with naplams, blockbusters I believe they were called, destroyed their fire trucks and ambulences when deployed, and watched them burn/suffocate ).

Here we go, that's much better.

I especially liked the part about Hiroshima (or was it Nagasaki?)

[Stumblingdrunk]

Here we go, that's much better.

I especially liked the part about Hiroshima (or was it Nagasaki?)

it was the one with the napalm

[LinktheDeme]

You guys ruined my retard bait

[archibaldcrane]

? I can't even tell anymore. Hold me, it's so very cold.

[Howard Roark]

You realize that Afghani people are tribal right? meaning they wouldn't live in large cities. If you can't distinguish friend from foe when you're bombing then yo probably shouldn't be bombing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_Afghanistan

Kabul - 3,000,000
Kandahar - 468,200
Herat - 397,456
Mazari Sharif - 300,600
Kunduz - 264,100
Jalalabad - 205,423
Lashkar Gah - 201,546
Taluqan - 196,400
Puli Khumri - 180,800
Khost - 160,214
Sheberghan - 143,900
Charikar - 130,613
Ghazni - 154,618
Sari Pul - 136,000

hoooooookay

[Kuya]

The current US operation is in the vicinity of Mazari, and i believe Lashkar Gah is next.

[archibaldcrane]

Are we doing much actual bombing?

[Kuya]

Probably. Last i heard the civilians were complaining that NATO troops wouldn't let them leave the area, and i believe the reason was because they were afraid suspected terrorists might leave under cover of civilians fleeing the fighting zone.

[Rhinox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...in_Afghanistan



hoooooookay

you're kidding me right?


you just accounted for about 6 million out of a country of 26ish million.


how cute. Bet you were all proud thinking you made a point howie.

[Therin]

I don't even know what this means.

It means that the wife/children of a terrorist are only technically "civilians," just because they haven't committed terrorist actions. Sucks for them, being born/wed into it in a society that refuses to let them decide their own future, but that's the whole reason we're over there in the first place.

How many sons of a particular terrorist are going to grow up to be open-minded, humane people, even if we weren't engaged in a war in Afghanistan?

Spoilers: None. Every single one of them would shoot you and your family in a heartbeat if they had an AK-47 in their hands and were staring you down at point-blank range. Yes, even the 9-year-old children. It's because of indoctrination.

This is why we're having a "war on terror," because the only way to lessen the number of terrorists in future generations and to provide for women, children, and others to make their own decisions about their future is to try to get rid of terrorism, as difficult and tactically improbable it might be.

I realize this is hard to comprehend for most you, because I probably sound to you like some ultra-conservative extremist, but I'm not. I consider myself libertarian and dislike the war that we're in, for socio-economic reasons. But not understanding the situation in war torn countries full of terrorists like Afghanistan just proves ignorance of what's really going on.

If you don't see it at all, then you haven't been reading. Wacko-vision tells me people don't like it when you bomb their kids(Arabs get really touchy about it) and kids don't like it when they have to grow up in a war. There are children in Afghanistan who have known nothing but war. What kind of future does that give them?

Your point? Yes, there are a lot of civilians in Afghanistan who surely hate the way their country is being led. So maybe their government should do something about that. You know, like, not sponsor the terrorism which is ravaging their nation, and try to promote a more liberal, modern government. Sounds like a good idea to me.

The problem is, that will never happen if they're left to their own devices. The kids of a Islamic extremist leader will also be Islamic extremists, because it gets them rich and it makes them happy at the expense of the people on the bottom.

I don't believe the U.S. should be playing big brother to other countries. As I said, I consider myself libertarian, and that means I support the military for (mostly) defensive purposes only. But I can see why some leaders feel that these campaigns are necessary, and even people who aren't on my side, politically, agree (notice that Obama has gotten a lot less vocal about drawing out of the war now that he's actually in a position where he's getting actual intel - while I'm sure he still wants to get us out, it's not as clear cut as it looked to him before he took office).

The best we can hope for now is to do what we can to keep things as stable as possible. Pulling out would leave the country in worse shape than it was before. Two wrongs don't make a right - we shouldn't have gone in the first place, but now that we're there, we have to accept the responsibility of staying through with the operations and trying to see it out, and while doing so, use tactical methods which provide for as few civilian deaths as possible (i.e., drone strikes). Short of inventing a time machine, I'm pretty sure that's the best we can do.

[Kuya]

It means that the wife/children of a terrorist are only technically "civilians,"

lol

being born/wed into it in a society that refuses to let them decide their own future, but that's the whole reason we're over there in the first place.

LOL

[Kuya]

So maybe their government should do something about that. You know, like, not sponsor the terrorism which is ravaging their nation, and try to promote a more liberal, modern government. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Jesus christ, you do not know anything at all about afghanistan, do you?

[Cephius]

Kuya I'm curious about how you feel RE: North Korea. Do you support sanctions or military action against them if they gain the ability to launch an ICBM? Almost every single person outside of the government regime is an innocent civilian who has nothing to do with the situation, and they'd likely be the only ones hurt by sanctions or military action. I'm just curious where you draw the line.

[archibaldcrane]

It means that the wife/children of a terrorist are only technically "civilians," just because they haven't committed terrorist actions. Sucks for them, being born/wed into it in a society that refuses to let them decide their own future, but that's the whole reason we're over there in the first place.

How many sons of a particular terrorist are going to grow up to be open-minded, humane people, even if we weren't engaged in a war in Afghanistan?

Spoilers: None. Every single one of them would shoot you and your family in a heartbeat if they had an AK-47 in their hands and were staring you down at point-blank range. Yes, even the 9-year-old children. It's because of indoctrination.

You realize that the most famous terrorist in the world, Osama Bin Laden, has 19 children, some of whom live in "western" nations, have denounced their father's actions, and don't immediately shoot westerners in the face.

It's amazing that you actually believe this.

For one example, read up on little Omar, Osama's 4th son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Osama_bin_Laden

[BRP]

How many sons of a particular terrorist are going to grow up to be open-minded, humane people, even if we weren't engaged in a war in Afghanistan?

Actually whether they become open-minded or humane isn't at all important. You don't even need to be either in America and certainly not so if you want to be our ally. What matters is if they will become enemies of America and only to the point where they would actually attack our stuff - outside of our occupation.

Spoilers: None. Every single one of them would shoot you and your family in a heartbeat if they had an AK-47 in their hands and were staring you down at point-blank range. Yes, even the 9-year-old children. It's because of indoctrination.

It does make blowing kids up easier if you actually believe this, I'll give you that.

This is why we're having a "war on terror," because the only way to lessen the number of terrorists in future generations and to provide for women, children, and others to make their own decisions about their future is to try to get rid of terrorism, as difficult and tactically improbable it might be.

Really the ONLY way? What exactly do you have to go on? A failed war? A misplaced war?

Terrorism is a reaction to our presence. Right now America is a fat kid in a tub trying to break the waves he is making in the first place. That is energy better spent elsewhere.

Your point? Yes, there are a lot of civilians in Afghanistan who surely hate the way their country is being led.

This is true, at least it once was. Which makes KILLING these civilians or their friends and families all the more retarded. It is not so rare that someone would go from pro-America to anti-America in the span of our occupation. We done some dick-moves and we've been there a long time. We can't just say "Open wide and eat my shit or else you won't get your dessert." Not without pissing them off.

You know, like, not sponsor the terrorism which is ravaging their nation,

Actually it is the war that is ravaging their nation. A war consists of at least two parties.

and try to promote a more liberal, modern government. Sounds like a good idea to me.

"STABILITY"

The problem is, that will never happen if they're left to their own devices.

"STABILITY"

that means I support the military for (mostly) defensive purposes only.

And it means... you are erratic with your ideas. Perhaps there are bloody hypothetical wars out there you are against.

Pulling out would leave the country in worse shape than it was before.

If you say so, bub.

[Therin]

For one example, read up on little Omar, Osama's 4th son. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Osama_bin_Laden

Okay, so you show me someone who has obviously benefited from the system and understands why he shouldn't be wandering around the desert toting an assault rifle, but instead lives a normal life.

I'm talking about the regular terrorists. Like, the ones who are actually engaged in the war.

Terrorism is a reaction to our presence. Right now America is a fat kid in a tub trying to break the waves he is making in the first place. That is energy better spent elsewhere.

Terrorism is not at all a reaction to our presence. Some of the specific instances of terrorism on our forces in Afghanistan, yes. But not terrorism in general. It has been going on for years, and will continue to go on forever.

Again, economically, this war was foolish. The U.S. should be not be trying to police other nations, I know that and disagree with it. It's an idealist war, which will likely never be concluded. The intentions are good, but misguided.

It's just that we can't really leave it the way it is now, now that we've taken on the responsibility of moving into the country. If you seriously think we should just run away and that their country would do better without any intervention, I don't even really want to discuss it with you anymore.

[archibaldcrane]

Okay, so you show me someone who has obviously benefited from the system and understands why he shouldn't be wandering around the desert toting an assault rifle, but instead lives a normal life.

I'm talking about the regular terrorists. Like, the ones who are actually engaged in the war.

Osama Bin Laden isn't engaged in this war?

That's like saying George W. Bush wasn't engaged in the war in Iraq.

Fucking retarded, like everything you are saying.

[Kuya]

Kuya I'm curious about how you feel RE: North Korea. Do you support sanctions or military action against them if they gain the ability to launch an ICBM? Almost every single person outside of the government regime is an innocent civilian who has nothing to do with the situation, and they'd likely be the only ones hurt by sanctions or military action. I'm just curious where you draw the line.

I don't know enough about North Korea to talk about it.