[Zionist Nationalist]

I dont support indiscriminate killing of civilians but I also dont think enemy civilians should have any priority
if a 1 terrorist is hiding in a house with 10 civilians that house should be bombed without any questions

[Ter]

@anasawad
just show me where I said that indiscriminate killing of civilians is justified?
Stop putting words in my mouth.

[Zagadka]

if a 1 terrorist is hiding in a house with 10 civilians that house should be bombed without any questions

Um, no. That is a great way to get everyone in the country to want to murderkill you. For good reason.

[anasawad]

@Ter
Look at the post right above yours.
You've been making lots of posts like that constantly. And that pretty much the same concept groups like ISIS and the Islamic front works by.
If a hospital has a 100 civilians in it, and just one soldier. Bomb it to the ground and call the rest war casualties. (this one should sound familiar because both ISIS and the US did the exact same thing to different hospitals in the same year)
That is indiscriminate killing if you haven't known before, and that is what the US for example is doing with its drone strikes and casual airstrikes. You know, the ones you keep defending as justified.
By saying these actions are justified, you're also justifying the same narrative terrorists actually use.
Its ok to assassinate a single man with a bomb even if it killed 10s of others with hem.
Its ok to target embassies of hostile countries, even if civilians died in 100s, as long as the target is destroyed.
Its ok to bomb a military check point, even if dozens of civilians cars were going through it in the given time.

Drone strikes in the way the US is doing them are exactly like those attacks, simply better technology. By justifying one, you automatically justify the other.

[Ter]

Look at the post right above yours.
You've been making lots of posts like that constantly.

That post is not mine.
Again, show me where I said that indiscriminate killing of civilians is justified.
If you can't, an apology would be nice.

[anasawad]

@Ter
We've literally had a argument about drone strikes a couple of days ago me and you and others that lasted for several pages with you constantly justifying drone strikes and the civilians casualties produced by them by saying they "kill terrorists" when sources showed constantly that they overwhelmingly kill much more civilians than militants when done.
You seriously going to deny ever defending the practice or deny going into such discussions and justifications ?


@Zagadka
He or others don't need to go all open and say they want to kill people indiscriminately like some posters here do.
Simply by defending a position or a practice, you accept and stand by it.

And what 'm saying is very simple. based on the logic used in these justifications. Why is terrorism bad for seeking an end using violence and with disregard to any casualties produced on the way ? but a government pursuing an end with violence and with disregard to any casualties produced on the way good ?
The theme is different, but the practice, the narrative, the methodology are exactly the same.
So by justifying one and accepting it, you automatically justify and accept the other.

You want to kill these militants and their leaders because they're the enemy. And they want to kill your soldiers or politicians because you're the enemy.
If you both destroy civilian structures. Kill civilians. Have total disregard to law or morality. Both seeking political ends. Both using violence.

What exactly is the difference here other than the theme of the narrative ?

[Ter]

@Ter
We've literally had a argument about drone strikes a couple of days ago me and you and others that lasted for several pages with you constantly justifying drone strikes and the civilians casualties produced by them by saying they "kill terrorists" when sources showed constantly that they overwhelmingly kill much more civilians than militants when done.
You seriously going to deny ever defending the practice or deny going into such discussions and justifications ?

I suggest you read that thread again.
Nowhere did I state that indiscriminate killing of civilians is warranted.
That thread was centered on the "intent" of the drone strikes, i.e. targetting terrorists.
The numbers of civilians killed during those operations was first of all in dispute and secondly, the difference with terrorist atrocities was that they target civilians on purpose. If civilians get killed through drone strikes, then that is not intentional. To deduce from that that I agree with killing civilians indiscriminately is absolutely not acceptable.

[anasawad]

@Ter
Yes, it was about the intent. And in that argument you were saying that the drone operators do not intent to kill civilians.
But all the sources shows them killing large numbers of civilians. And even the press conferences given by the white house about these strikes have something in common, they don't know who they're killing exactly. And incidents large enough do make the news showing that in many cases, to kill one person they go ahead and kill 10s of civilians and even bombing hospitals, open markets, weddings, houses, etc . i.e exactly what ISIS does routinely.

Now when you have missiles that can hit in total accuracy a target very small and from miles away. And proud yourself of having the best technology in the world. And end up missing your target 90% of the time and producing thousands of civilian casualties and barely affecting your stated target group.
Its either intentional, or simply the side casualties are irrelevant in the show of force to achieve your ends.
Again, same exact behavior with groups like ISIS and the Taliban and the Islamic front and all the others.

So, why is one bad and the other good ? since they do everything the same, just difference in technology and capability. Then either they're both good, or both bad.
There is no in between answer if you wish to be objective.


The part addressed at Zagadka should be added here so .

Why is terrorism bad for seeking an end using violence and with disregard to any casualties produced on the way ? but a government pursuing an end with violence and with disregard to any casualties produced on the way good ?
The theme is different, but the practice, the narrative, the methodology are exactly the same.
So by justifying one and accepting it, you automatically justify and accept the other.
You want to kill these militants and their leaders because they're the enemy. And they want to kill your soldiers or politicians because you're the enemy.
If you both destroy civilian structures. Kill civilians. Have total disregard to law or morality. Both seeking political ends. Both using violence.
What exactly is the difference here other than the theme of the narrative ?

[skinster]

Again, show me where I said that indiscriminate killing of civilians is justified.

You were pro drone-strikes because "good intentions" or some shit. That's supporting the indiscriminate killing of civilians considering how many civilians (and there are tons) have been killed by drones.

[SpecialOlympian]

[Zag Note: Do NOT false quote other users]

[Ter]

Murdering civilians rules. As far as I'm concerned, war is just an excuse to kill people. The less involved they are with the military or political apparatus of their country the better. I just love it when people die, and you can quote me on that.

For breakfast I had huevos rancheros spiced with white phosphorous and some toast.

[/quote]

I never said anything like that anywhere.
I believe deliberately misquoting posters is an offence against the rules of Pofo.
SO what got into you?

[SpecialOlympian]

It's a joke man everyone knows you didn't say that.

[Ter]

OK then, you are forgiven.

[Drlee]

Here is the deal. Civilians can only claim to be noncombatants until they knowingly harbor terrorists. That is the issue with Islamic countries. All too often they look the other way while the bad guys live among them only to act aggrieved with we bomb their house guests.

If the local folks took up arms against folks like the Taliban then there would not be a problem. If you hide a terrorist in your garage don't bitch at me when your house goes up in smoke with you in it. "Oh but they forced me..you say". Ok. Run away. Fight them early on. Band together to take back your country. But don't tell me that that you are an innocent civilian when you have a terrorist at your table.

[Igor Antunov]

So everyone can agree now that this attack was just a political stunt? Good.

[Godstud]

Civilians can only claim to be noncombatants until they knowingly harbor terrorists. That is the issue with Islamic countries. All too often they look the other way while the bad guys live among them only to act aggrieved with we bomb their house guests.

If baddies show up with guns at your house and use the basement, you may be knowingly harbouring terrorists, but it might very well be at the end of a gun.

[anasawad]

@Drlee
'm assuming that the literal war against these groups by the people of the nations they're invading and their need to literally, with no minimizing of the word, enslave people or jail them or even put them in chains so they don't run away thus keeping them as hostages, didn't come to your mind before writing that post ?


Here is an example of the civilians "protecting terrorists" in Syria;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ields.html

Here is an example of civilians "harboring and protecting terrorists" in Afghanistan;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8519507.stm


Now tell me, aren't you personally one of the regular posters here constantly pointing the superiority of the American and NATO military in general, and boasting about the cutting edge technology of precision guided bombs and all that stuff ? Shouldn't that not kill civilians ? Or thats not the purpose of it ?

What about the MSF hospital that was bombed by an airstrike, were they harboring terrorists willingly ?


Before you make a judgement, perhaps you should do a little thought experiment and imagine what if such terrorists held you hostage and hid in your house. What would you want to be done ? just drop a bomb on your house with you in it ? would you go "bitching" about it ? because don't think it cant happen for its your own government. No, Mr Obama made the precedent and droned an American citizen. So Americans are now just as valid target for drone strikes as anyone else.

[Ter]

The American citizen droned was Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the worst terrorists ever.
see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
Interesting that some liberals decried his execution even though he was responsible for many deaths, most of them civilians. And he was hiding in Yemen, unreachable to the justice system.
I don't care what passport he was carrying, even if he was a diplomat for the Holy see.

[anasawad]

@Ter
True, he was a terrorist hemself.
But, Was his 16 year old American son a terrorist ? Or his 8 year old American daughter a terrorist ?
Note the each of them was killed in a different occasion and neither with hem.
So i apologize, i should reframe my statement. American Children are also legitimate target for drone and air strikes as well now if the goals required it. Or more like their life can be simply be deemed irrelevant as long as what ever ends are met.
Lovely right ? 'm sure now with someone like Trump in office, eager to try his new toys. Americans are not going to start "bitching" about it.

[Ter]

So i apologize, i should reframe my statement. American Children are also legitimate target for drone and air strikes as well now if the goals required it.

This is misleading : you mix some truth and hide some other truth.
First of all, the son: he left a safe house in the capital to go looking for his father. He ended up in a place with terrorists and that place got droned. Eight terrorists were killed and he happened to be present.
The daughter : she was present in a place that was attacked by American special forces to free hostages. She did not deserve to die, she was not targetted. Why was she there? I don't know.
You make it look as if the children of Anwar al-Awlaki were specifically targeted. This is simply not correct.