54 replies to this topic

[iSocialism]

 

The drone program though... It's nasty but effective, abd in the end, that's what really matters.

 

 

To what end though? Bombing of a hospital, and countless on countries we aren't at war with. 

 

The difference is we want no civilian causalities, we never bombed with the intent to only harm civilians. Civilans get hurt, but they get hurt more when evil is allow to hide over borders. As soon as the war ends and the enemy is stopped, the bombing stops. The enemy on the other will always bomb, because their target is not a military force. It's a population, in which they went to destroy or control. Countries that hide these guys, are only supporting them. Shelter and a safe zone to restock and organize is a lot deadlier than a attack it's self.

[onbekende]

Why Trump will win?

 

Not cause of politics, thats for sure.

[ccabal86]

 

The drone program though... It's nasty but effective, abd in the end, that's what really matters.

 
 
To what end though? Bombing of a hospital, and countless on countries we aren't at war with. 
 

The difference is we want no civilian causalities, we never bombed with the intent to only harm civilians. Civilans get hurt, but they get hurt more when evil is allow to hide over borders. As soon as the war ends and the enemy is stopped, the bombing stops. The enemy on the other will always bomb, because their target is not a military force. It's a population, in which they went to destroy or control. Countries that hide these guys, are only supporting them. Shelter and a safe zone to restock and organize is a lot deadlier than a attack it's self.

Exactly. Not to mention these people often intentionally use civilians as a shield to protect themselves. Despite that, the US has done a remarkable job in minimizing civilian casualties and collateral damage since the '90s.

[DarkFox]

except there are countless cases where there was a suspected terrorist and we bomb innocents. The thing that makes them the bad guys is the same thing that the killbots are doing.

[ccabal86]

There are always casualties in war, and this is a war. Nevertheless civilian casualties in military operations have drasically fallen, even since the 90s due to evolving technology and a serious effort to reduce them.

 

This also explains the difference between civilians killed by the US and those killed by the terrorists. The US wants to minimize collateral damage while taking out high priority targets, while the terrorists go specifically for soft targets and seek to kill or harm as many as possible.

[onbekende]

guerilla warfare 101

[DarkFox]

There are always casualties in war, and this is a war. Nevertheless civilian casualties in military operations have drastically fallen, even since the 90s due to evolving technology and a serious effort to reduce them.

 

This also explains the difference between civilians killed by the US and those killed by the terrorists. The US wants to minimize collateral damage while taking out high priority targets, while the terrorists go specifically for soft targets and seek to kill or harm as many as possible.

 

Except not everyone we bomb are at war with us. Perhaps this article can help shine a light on the issue

[ccabal86]

 

There are always casualties in war, and this is a war. Nevertheless civilian casualties in military operations have drastically fallen, even since the 90s due to evolving technology and a serious effort to reduce them.

 

This also explains the difference between civilians killed by the US and those killed by the terrorists. The US wants to minimize collateral damage while taking out high priority targets, while the terrorists go specifically for soft targets and seek to kill or harm as many as possible.

 

Except not everyone we bomb are at war with us. Perhaps this article can help shine a light on the issue

 

 

Sure, like every method, this too is an imperfect one. But what is the better alternative then? "Not fighting back at all" is the only option that will not result in innocents dying - at least on that side.

[DarkFox]

I am saying that we either take the highroad or we don't. Right now we aren't and we are hiding the fact. Many of these "terrorists" are actually just normal people. These bombings turn them into martyrs. I would rather leave 1 alive than make 10 more because we killed people are random.

[ccabal86]

If by taking the high road you mean full commitment to eradicate these individuals, then yes, I agree we should do that, even if it isn't a popular stance. I agree that the drone program is a kind of half-solution that's far from ideal.

 

However, letting terrorist leaders to operate with impunity or without fear of punishment is the worst possible course of action.

[DarkFox]

If by taking the high road you mean full commitment to eradicate these individuals, then yes, I agree we should do that, even if it isn't a popular stance. I agree that the drone program is a kind of half-solution that's far from ideal.

 

However, letting terrorist leaders to operate with impunity or without fear of punishment is the worst possible course of action.

 

Just because they are classified as terrorists, or have terrorist links doesn't mean they are.  The high road would not be killing people with impunity because we feel that one day they might be a threat to us. We are making martyrs and setting up more hate against the US than we are saving. Children are scared of clear days because that is when the bombs fall. No innocent killed by these drones are acceptable casualties and we shouldn't be doing it because there is no proof it is even helping us.

 

Here is some data as of May 21st in Pakistan (a country we are not at war with)

Total strikes: 424

Obama strikes: 373

Total killed: 2,499-4,001

Civilians killed: 424-966

Children killed: 172-207

Injured: 1,161-1,744

 

source

[ccabal86]

Actually, those numbers aren't so bad. That's 2-3000 terrorists dead, and I'd wager those that are designated as "civilians" might not always be completely innocent either.

That is not to say there can't be improvement, or a better way, but I'll argue that leaving 3000 militants alive would result in a lot more civilian deaths than the collateral damage. Hell, there's a good chance these would mostly happen in Pakistan too

[Sithon]

As American citizen that only real civil duty to do is to vote, I believe we are screwed regardless of who we vote for. My opinion this election is just picking which of the of the two are the lesser evil. So time to pack my bags and move to another country.

[DarkFox]

Actually, those numbers aren't so bad. That's 2-3000 terrorists dead, and I'd wager those that are designated as "civilians" might not always be completely innocent either.

That is not to say there can't be improvement, or a better way, but I'll argue that leaving 3000 militants alive would result in a lot more civilian deaths than the collateral damage. Hell, there's a good chance these would mostly happen in Pakistan too

 

So you are okay with possibly only 40% of the people who died being terrorists? These are mostly bombings on towns, weddings, birthdays and family gatherings. Not just training camps and army formations. 

[ccabal86]

It's more around 15-20%, but the point is that civilian casualties are on the decline. Accuracy and policy can be improved. Abandoning a workable solution while offering no viable alternative is the worst possible approach.

[DarkFox]

It's more around 15-20%, but the point is that civilian casualties are on the decline. Accuracy and policy can be improved. Abandoning a workable solution while offering no viable alternative is the worst possible approach.

 

They claim. They can say someone is a terrorist and put them in the terrorist column. Suddenly that village they bombed and killed 20 innocents to kill the 1 guy they thought might be a terrorist becomes 15 terrorists dead and 6 women. And let me be very clear, even 1 civilian casualty caused by us against a country we are NOT at war with is unacceptable. This is not for our defense, this is creating future terrorists and not helping us. 

[Fox Fire]

 

It's more around 15-20%, but the point is that civilian casualties are on the decline. Accuracy and policy can be improved. Abandoning a workable solution while offering no viable alternative is the worst possible approach.

 

They claim. They can say someone is a terrorist and put them in the terrorist column. Suddenly that village they bombed and killed 20 innocents to kill the 1 guy they thought might be a terrorist becomes 15 terrorists dead and 6 women. And let me be very clear, even 1 civilian casualty caused by us against a country we are NOT at war with is unacceptable. This is not for our defense, this is creating future terrorists and not helping us. 

 

^

Dozens of sheep were once bombed because they were thought to be Taliban. Reason being, they were white and the Taliban were believed to wear white. So one day a flock of sheep was mistaken for a congregation of Taliban and bombed. Dozens were killed. They were all sheep. 

That should give you an idea of how precise our bombing really is. 

[ccabal86]

So improve on your intelligence systems and the precision of your technology. Get the defense contractors and your intelligence agencies working on that. That's the solution here.

[DarkFox]

So improve on your intelligence systems and the precision of your technology. Get the defense contractors and your intelligence agencies working on that. That's the solution here.

 

Except you were defending it as it is now. As it is now they are flawed and our country is doing acts of terrorism in the guise of killing terrorists. 

 

I am all for bombing terrorists, I just want to make sure it is only them that are getting bombed.

[GAY HOMO]

Also, Hillary is an American killing amoral bitch.

 

LOL THERE WERE LIKE 12 BENGHAZIS WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE BUT YOU FAGGOTS DIDNT REALLY CARE THEN. SOME WOMEN WITH A D NEXT TO HER NAME AND IT HAPPENS AND NIGGAS WONT LET IT GO SMDH FAM I NEED SOME DICK, RICK.