In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that after the U.S. kills people with drones in Pakistan, it then targets for death those who show up at the scene to rescue the survivors and retrieve the bodies, as well as those who gather to mourn the dead at funerals: “the CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals.” As The New York Times summarized those findings: “at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile” while “the bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals.”
This repellent practice continues. Over the last three days, the U.S. has launched three separate drone strikes in Pakistan: one on each day. As The Guardian reports, the U.S. has killed between 20 and 30 people in these strikes, the last of which, early this morning, killed between 8 and 15. It was the second strike, on Sunday, that targeted mourners gathered to grieve those killed in the first strike:
Agree/disagree? Obviously nobody agrees with civilians being killed, but when someone shows up the mourn for a know terrorist, I guess the Obama Administration feels they are terrorists as well.
I said in the other thread that Obama is ruthless when it comes to the WoT. Might be in a nice way to describe him.
If I were an uneducated villager who thought my fellow Canadians were helping to fight the great foreign invader, I probably would rush to help them too when they got their limbs blown off. Especially if they were from my village or nearby ones, which they often would be, or even members of my huge extended family.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HPLovecraft For This Useful Post:
Interesting to try and make it about Obama. Your contention is that a Republican administration would be more compassionate?
I think his contention is that the Obama administration is ruthless in the war on terror.
I think it is you who is trying to make it about something else. Azure was pretty clear.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following User Says Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
Taking the fight to their soil is what keeps them off of ours.
The fight will always be somewhere... better there than here.
I get a kick out of the leftist oikophobes who hate their own civilization.
Western civilization is the most free, the most advanced and the most open-minded civilization on the planet.
People need to pick a side. Seems many people who enjoy being part of the most amazing civilization on earth do nothing but run to the defense of the civilizations and cultures that would destroy our way of life if they were allowed to come here and outnumber us (oh wait... we do allow this it seems).
All that said, I would say Pakistan, on average, is more Western thinking than most countries in that region of the world, so I'm not directing my rhetoric towards Pakistan specifically.
Regardless of how you look at it... it's either there or here.
I know who's side I want to be on. Let the bombs fall where they may, because they're always going to be falling somewhere in the world.
If I were an uneducated villager who thought my fellow Canadians were helping to fight the great foreign invader, I probably would rush to help them too when they got their limbs blown off. Especially if they were from my village or nearby ones, which they often would be, or even members of my huge extended family.
Terrorists spend a great deal of time and effort trying to recruit members into their terrorist organizations in order to spread their ideals and tactics. I am sure they tried to spread the word through their villages (or nearby ones) first. I highly doubt that the fellow villager (educated or not) trying to save the dude that was just killed by a drone doesn't already know that he was a terrorist.
Taking the fight to their soil is what keeps them off of ours.
The fight will always be somewhere... better there than here.
I get a kick out of the leftist oikophobes who hate their own civilization.
Western civilization is the most free, the most advanced and the most open-minded civilization on the planet.
People need to pick a side. Seems many people who enjoy being part of the most amazing civilization on earth do nothing but run to the defense of the civilizations and cultures that would destroy our way of life if they were allowed to come here and outnumber us (oh wait... we do allow this it seems).
All that said, I would say Pakistan, on average, is more Western thinking than most countries in that region of the world, so I'm not directing my rhetoric towards Pakistan specifically.
Regardless of how you look at it... it's either there or here.
I know who's side I want to be on. Let the bombs fall where they may, because they're always going to be falling somewhere in the world.
It must be nice living in a black and white world.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HPLovecraft For This Useful Post:
Terrorists spend a great deal of time and effort trying to recruit members into their terrorist organizations in order to spread their ideals and tactics. I am sure they tried to spread the word through their villages (or nearby ones) first. I highly doubt that the fellow villager (educated or not) trying to save the dude that was just killed by a drone doesn't already know that he was a terrorist.
Considering the number of civilians and other non-enemies that do get killed by strikes in Pakistan, why are you under the impression everyone killed by one is a terrorist? Unless you believe the entire population of Pakistan are terrorists.
We could also argue about the definition of terrorist in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border region. I think insurgent is a better title for the majority of them.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
The Following User Says Thank You to HPLovecraft For This Useful Post:
It must be nice living in a black and white world.
Come on, you really think that I believe it's THAT simple? Of course it's not... but viewing things from 40,000 ft, it is that simple.
Add another perspective if you're going to accuse me of having a monochromatic point of view.
My point is... in a war, you may have isolated moments of compassion at ground live that happen on an individual basis, but to think that you can wage war, as a country, with a compassionate mind is unrealistic.
I won't suggest what colour world you are living in, because I don't know you, but for me, a war is like a sport. You can only cheer for one team.
I'll cheer for the one that keeps dead corpses and burning buildings as far away from me as possible.
If we are only allowed to focus on the OP's funeral bombing in this thread... then yes, I am against that, providing it was the funeral of a civilian.
My comment was directed at that YouTube video that Temporary_User posted, not the OP's post.
Come on, you really think that I believe it's THAT simple? Of course it's not... but viewing things from 40,000 ft, it is that simple.
Add another perspective if you're going to accuse me of having a monochromatic point of view.
My point is... in a war, you may have isolated moments of compassion at ground live that happen on an individual basis, but to think that you can wage war, as a country, with a compassionate mind is unrealistic.
I won't suggest what colour world you are living in, because I don't know you, but for me, a war is like a sport. You can only cheer for one team.
I'll cheer for the one that keeps dead corpses and burning buildings as far away from me as possible.
If we are only allowed to focus on the OP's funeral bombing in this thread... then yes, I am against that, providing it was the funeral of a civilian.
My comment was directed at that YouTube video that Temporary_User posted, not the OP's post.
I can only judge you by the words you type out, and looking at war as a sport where one team plays another team is about as black and white as you can get.
I don't think bomb them all and let God sort them out is something the most free, advanced, and open-minded civilizations in the world would do, do you?
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
However, when you have people that are nuts and are hell bent to just cause destruction, you have to do your utmost to prevent that. If that means taking them out then it's fair in my book.
I hate the fact that there are people out there that do require this kind of response. If it wasn't for the fact that they are religious zealots, and instead chose to live their life according to the non crazy aspect of their religion, then there would not be a problem.
I wish that there was another way, but the best and most effective way is to kill them, and then kill their replacements and then kill their replacements. Eventually you will see people less enthusiastic to join and perhaps understand that maybe being a zealot is not the way to go and might figure out that there is more to life than dying for a cause that has no benefit other than mutual destruction.
As for people that are in the area at the time of bombing an Al-Queda guy, or at the funerals, I'm not as much of in agreement with that, but it possible to have a funeral indoors with just the family at their home. By now, you'd realize that they are going to bomb that so it's not a brilliant thing to go out and have a funeral. It is disgusting, vile, and morally reprehensible that the Americans do this but I can understand that they are trying to eliminate any targets of opportunity. It is war. It is ugly. If the Pakistanis don't like this, maybe they should take steps to eliminate Al-Queda in Pakistan to stop this practice.
Last edited by Caged Great; 06-05-2012 at 02:47 PM.
the best and most effective way is to kill them, and then kill their replacements and then kill their replacements. Eventually you will see people less enthusiastic to join
History shows that this approach has the exact opposite effect of what you want.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
okay. consider the scenario. A house blows up. Who is going to try and get in that house? Honestly, as much as you would think that a burning and exploding house would attract random strangers to enter the house, my bet is that the majority of strangers would not do a random act of kindness. These acts are rarer than society likes to think. The vast majority of people would likely leave. The people who would most likely go back in would be those that are related to individuals in the house or live in the house. This is a social psych perspective. So.. to re-bomb...from a utilitarian view....is totally justified.
Sometimes, civilians are killed in the crossfire between armed forces and terrorists. Killing a terrorist saves many civilian lives. Therfore, if you have a high probability of nailing a terrorist with a second strike, you essentially save lives that would have likely been taken away by that terrorist. I guess i'm attempting to apply ethics to the situation.
My own opinion -> i'm not sure. My own opinion needs some time to ponder. I honestly do not know if I would say it justifies it enough or not.
Why would the u.s. kill innocent people? What would that accomplish? The u.s. plans out all of their attacks to fight terror not be a random killing machine. If they were a random killing machine they would just bomb cities at random with a complete disregard for who is in them. It would be much much cheaper and quicker that way.
I have however seen terroists use women and children as human shields. I've also seen them walking in large groups of innocent bystandards to protect themselves from getting bombed or killed. How do you know some of these "mourners" were not terrorists? They wouldn't make it obvious.
Not to say the u.s. military doesn't have it's bad seeds that do things they shouldn't. However when they do they are quickly and publicly condemned.
U.S. again bombs mourners
