Frazzled wrote:
A missile is not a bomb.

If by not killing that man it results in more deaths of equal or larger number than the innocents injured than pure logic says you must take the shot.
EDIT: So you're willing for hundreds of thousands or millions of people to die? Speaking of being a monster.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Are you two really saying you think its a good idea to drop a bomb on a crowd of people to kill one man?

Thats what I'm ranting about, and you still haven't clarified your opinion on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

a missile launched at one person is very discriminate. How would you kill said terrorist?

By waiting until he's not standing in the middle of a fething crowd.

What if he's always in a crowd?

If Hitler was always in a crowd would it have been bad to bomb him?

Yes.

So you've killed your intended target. But you've still killed X number of innocent non-combatant people too,

When you start engaging in moral relativism like that, you no longer have a "Fixed Moral Compass" as you like to call it.

PhantomViper wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

In case you either didn't hear, or pretend it doesn't happen. Go read up on Americas drone program. I've quoted and posted links to it earlier.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147
From 2 strikes missing the intended target:
"Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not. "

Did you read the "missing the intended target" part? Or are you saying that its the same thing? That purposefully targeting civilians for slavery, rape and extermination is the same thing as bombs that missed their intended target and killed civilians by mistake?

You are just as bad as Edithae and both of you really should be ashamed of what you are saying here.

‘This shows that drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorised by the constant threat of death from the skies. ‘
The authoritative joint study, by Stanford and New York Universities, concludes that men, women and children are being terrorised by the operations ’24 hours-a-day’.
Researchers added that traumatic effects of the strikes go far beyond fatalities, psychologically battering a population which lives under the daily threat of annihilation from the air, and ruining the local economy.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
A missile is not a bomb.

If by not killing that man it results in more deaths of equal or larger number than the innocents injured than pure logic says you must take the shot.
EDIT: So you're willing for hundreds of thousands or millions of people to die? Speaking of being a monster.

When hes attending a Nazi Conference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Valkyrie

david choe wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Are you two really saying you think its a good idea to drop a bomb on a crowd of people to kill one man?

Thats what I'm ranting about, and you still haven't clarified your opinion on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

a missile launched at one person is very discriminate. How would you kill said terrorist?

By waiting until he's not standing in the middle of a fething crowd.

What if he's always in a crowd?

If Hitler was always in a crowd would it have been bad to bomb him?

Yes.

So you've killed your intended target. But you've still killed X number of innocent non-combatant people too,

When you start engaging in moral relativism like that, you no longer have a "Fixed Moral Compass" as you like to call it.

OMG... this is not about morals.. it is about you wining the war and make your enemy stay dead. It saves my troops lives and the enemy lives too by killing the boss and end the war fast. Simple math... kill Caliphate and take the crow of 100 with him and saved 100,000 of their jihadist and 5,000 americans soldiers... done deal... show me the button.

 djones520 wrote:

david choe wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Are you two really saying you think its a good idea to drop a bomb on a crowd of people to kill one man?

Thats what I'm ranting about, and you still haven't clarified your opinion on that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

a missile launched at one person is very discriminate. How would you kill said terrorist?

By waiting until he's not standing in the middle of a fething crowd.

What if he's always in a crowd?

If Hitler was always in a crowd would it have been bad to bomb him?

Yes.

So you've killed your intended target. But you've still killed X number of innocent non-combatant people too,

When you start engaging in moral relativism like that, you no longer have a "Fixed Moral Compass" as you like to call it.

OMG... this is not about morals.. it is about you wining the war and make your enemy stay dead. It saves my troops lives and the enemy lives too by killing the boss and end the war fast. Simple math... kill Caliphate and take the crow of 100 with him and saved 100,000 of their jihadist and 5,000 americans soldiers... done deal... show me the button.

Indiscriminantly killing dozens to hundreds of people to kill 1 man, would just in large part validate his teachings about the west. Use your head.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And THATS why we're no better than ISIS...

True that.

burning others alive.

sirlynchmob wrote:


What about the deliberate killing of first responders by use of double tapping?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html

‘This shows that drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorised by the constant threat of death from the skies. ‘
The authoritative joint study, by Stanford and New York Universities, concludes that men, women and children are being terrorised by the operations ’24 hours-a-day’.
Researchers added that traumatic effects of the strikes go far beyond fatalities, psychologically battering a population which lives under the daily threat of annihilation from the air, and ruining the local economy.

Look at that, the west is purposefully targeting and terrorizing civilians with exterminations. The US didn't just sink to the level of the terrorists, they sunk so far it's hard to tell who really is the bigger monster.

david choe wrote:

He is not 1 man. He is the Caliphate. He is worth 10,000s. By the way... USA has never ever stated that they send a missile to kill one man. YOU use your head... we drone strike a Jihadist HQ (Mosque) and 150 Jihadist were there with the Caliphate. Done. Pack up boys we're going home in two weeks. (I hope)

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And THATS why we're no better than ISIS...

True that.

I missed the news where we're systematically stoning people to death, keeping women as sex slaves, and burning others alive.

 djones520 wrote:

Indiscriminantly killing dozens to hundreds of people to kill 1 man, would just in large part validate his teachings about the west. Use your head.

sirlynchmob wrote:
You're just systematically bombing people to death, and burning others alive. So a pat on the back for not taking sex slaves I guess.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
You're just systematically bombing people to death, and burning others alive. So a pat on the back for not taking sex slaves I guess.

Your attempts at moral equivalence are just adorable.

david choe wrote:

Why is this Caliph is still allow to live is beyond me.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
As opposed to your moral relativism?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
As opposed to your moral relativism?

You're taking exception to the fact I'm pointing out that the US and the West is nothing like ISIS? What school of moral relativism do you believe I am following?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I missed the news where we're systematically stoning people to death, keeping women as sex slaves, and burning others alive.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

david choe wrote:

Why is this Caliph is still allow to live is beyond me.

Because then another one will miraculously spring up, revealing himself as the true leader and the previous one to be an imposter.

See how easy that is?


Also, I'll be blunt, I'm one of the first people to say WTF when someone screws the pooch and whacks civvies, but gak does happen.

You have to weigh the possibility of civilian casualties versus the value of the target and weapons at hand. I can see a complaint if you use a nuke to take out one guy, or someone is clearly out of control and spams hellfires chasing a dump truck through a crowded urban area, but the vast majority of incidents are maybe a handful of people in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is true of any war.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I missed the news where we're systematically stoning people to death, keeping women as sex slaves, and burning others alive.

Well... Marijuana is legal in at least 3 states (Washington and Colorado for a year +, and Oregon's law was just passed, but takes affect in June/July). And if you listen to certain types of people, Marijuana gives people the Crazy, and also makes them dead.

Many of those same people view Strip Clubs and adult entertainment as if the women are slaves....

And, if you've even seen a clip of Jersey Shore, people burn themselves alive, and PAY to do it!! (I am of course, referring to tanning beds )

Experiment 626 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

david choe wrote:

Why is this Caliph is still allow to live is beyond me.

Because then another one will miraculously spring up, revealing himself as the true leader and the previous one to be an imposter.

See how easy that is?


Also, I'll be blunt, I'm one of the first people to say WTF when someone screws the pooch and whacks civvies, but gak does happen.

You have to weigh the possibility of civilian casualties versus the value of the target and weapons at hand. I can see a complaint if you use a nuke to take out one guy, or someone is clearly out of control and spams hellfires chasing a dump truck through a crowded urban area, but the vast majority of incidents are maybe a handful of people in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is true of any war.

There's also the bigger issue that Islamists are forever using their civilian populations as human shields for their fighters, leaders & weapon stores, in the hopes that either we'll be too reluctant to strike at them, (for fear of the collateral civilian tolls), and/or else just use their own inhuman tactics to further blame the big bad West as a bunch of baby-killing devils.

 CptJake wrote:
If you cannot acknowledge the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and maximizing the numbers of deaths in an attempt to induce compliance/terror/extermination of non-believers and targeting leadership nodes where some civilians may be killed but a large effort is put into reducing/minimizing the civilian casualties, then there really is not much point in continuing the conversation.

There is a difference. When the US caps innocents, there is an investigation and often adjustments to ROE and other mitigating factors get put into place. When Da'Ish caps innocents, they film it and it used as propaganda and recruiting material. If the US was trying to kill innocent Syrian and Iraqi children, tens of thousands more would be dead.

http://childvictimsofwar.org.uk/get-informed/iraq/
approximately 600 000 children are living on the streets.
In the 1970s, Iraq was one of the best countries in the Middle East and North Africa to be a child, but due to decades of war and neglect, it has become one of the worst. Some of the issues facing Iraq’s 15 million children now include the following:
Each year, around 35,000 infants die before reaching their first birthday
Over 1.5 million children under the age of five are undernourished
Around 700,000 children are not enrolled in primary school, while hundreds of thousands more drop out before graduating
2.5 million children do not have access to safe water, and 3.5 million lack adequate sanitation facilities
Al-Qaida was not a problem for Iraq prior to 2003. Now they have a substantial presence.

http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/
The Illusion of Validity

The low numbers the news media and political leaders use to describe the outcome of these wars provide an unintentional symmetry to the conflicts: the conflicts began under an illusion of validity, to borrow a phrase from psychologist Daniel Kahneman, which in Iraq was Saddam Hussein’s purported “weapons of mass destruction” and in Afghanistan was the purported hot pursuit of Osama bin Laden. Now the wars wind down under another illusion of validity, which is that the civilians harmed by the wars are relatively few. This is repeated so often, sometimes with reference to the Iraq Body Count or UN numbers, however hollow their credibility, that absurdly low estimates have become conventional wisdom. It is so much so that even the liberal media, like National Public Radio or the New York Times, rarely explore the human costs of the war to Iraqis or Afghanis.

These illusions, which feed indifference, have consequences. Others in the Muslim world particularly notice this callousness. It does not reflect well on America that many believe it to be a reckless bully unmindful of the havoc it wreaked, nor on Britain and Canada that they are camp followers of this recklessness.

The consequences for the United States are even more dramatic if considering the domestic political scene. By ignoring or forgetting the sheer destructiveness of the wars, Americans can continue on a path of seeing all foreign problems as fixable with military force. (Nowadays some domestic issues are regarded in the same light, with one result being the enormous homeland security apparatus.) This has been the tragic tendency of U.S. policy makers since 1945. The president is the commander-in-chief of the military, and as the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., said of previous armed ventures, war above all nourishes the presidency. If there is no accountability for the human toll of war, the urge to deploy military assets will remain powerful.

 CptJake wrote:
If I set up a TOC/leadership node in a Mosque courtyard or inside a school building I turn that structure into a legitimate target. It works that way for Da'Ish too.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If I set up a TOC/leadership node in a Mosque courtyard or inside a school building I turn that structure into a legitimate target. It works that way for Da'Ish too.

Which is fine, as long you don't blow it up whilst its full of worshipers or school children. The building is irrelevant. The potential for civilian deaths is not.

 CptJake wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
If I set up a TOC/leadership node in a Mosque courtyard or inside a school building I turn that structure into a legitimate target. It works that way for Da'Ish too.

Which is fine, as long you don't blow it up whilst its full of worshipers or school children. The building is irrelevant. The potential for civilian deaths is not.

It is a terrible thing, but a true thing, the party responsible for those deaths would be the party using the structure and the civilians as cover. The laws of war are pretty clear on that.

Experiment 626 wrote:

There's also the bigger issue that Islamists are forever using their civilian populations as human shields for their fighters, leaders & weapon stores, in the hopes that either we'll be too reluctant to strike at them, (for fear of the collateral civilian tolls), and/or else just use their own inhuman tactics to further blame the big bad West as a bunch of baby-killing devils.

 CptJake wrote:

It is a terrible thing, but a true thing, the party responsible for those deaths would be the party using the structure and the civilians as cover. The laws of war are pretty clear on that.