FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Airstrikes still ongoing despite Himid Karzai's ban...





JoryRFerrell
Uhm...correction: "*HAMID* Karzai"...not "Himid Karzai". :\
Anyways...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/report-76-civilians-kille_n_120722.html

http://www.islamicinvitationturkey.com/2013/10/01/one-killed-four-wounded-in-us-airstrike-in-afghanistan/

Dead horse...but I'll still ride it...

If terrorists were present in the United States, would it be acceptable for our government to bomb neighborhoods, with innocent civilians, to clean them out?

If you answer no, what makes it right to do it in another country where we are not in an all-out do-or-die war?

Doing this essentially says, "An innocent American life would be worth taking the risk of fighting on foot. But if it's a foreigner at risk, their life counts for less than that of an American, so it is acceptable for grown men, who swore an oath to protect human rights, to continue actions that will lead to the death of foreigners."

You may disagree, but in the hearts and minds war, many Afghans are not our friends due to our methods. It only took 21 people to pull off 9/11...Afghanistan is full of a lot more than 21 people, angry with our aerial bombardments. :\
watersoul
JoryRFerrell wrote:
If terrorists were present in the United States, would it be acceptable for our government to bomb neighborhoods, with innocent civilians, to clean them out?

If you answer no, what makes it right to do it in another country where we are not in an all-out do-or-die war?

No it would not be acceptable, and it is not morally defensible to bomb innocent human beings in other countries either.
deanhills
Agreed. Including the attack of Ossama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Not that I saw it as such a big coup of Obama either as the US marines basically assassinated Ossama when he was of little use to any one any longer, including El Qaeda or should I say of little use especially to El Qaeda. Which no doubt led to selling his whereabouts out via the Pakistan Military to the highest bidder - which no doubt was the US.
biolu
That's the difference between a "strong" country having military suppremacy and a "weak" allied country...
JoryRFerrell
deanhills wrote:
Agreed. Including the attack of Ossama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Not that I saw it as such a big coup of Obama either as the US marines basically assassinated Ossama when he was of little use to any one any longer, including El Qaeda or should I say of little use especially to El Qaeda. Which no doubt led to selling his whereabouts out via the Pakistan Military to the highest bidder - which no doubt was the US.


Personally I don't feel that just because Osama may have lost power means he is no longer a valuable
target. An admitted murder potentially getting away with such a public issue is a huge publicity strike.
A target like Osama has to be dealt with on principal.
baboosaa
for sure there could be request and a lot of request again and again and again but the question is not that whether or not anybody hears it.....it's just simple ...should the listener be aware of what the requesting person is saying.
coolclay
The technique the United States has adopted recently (and mostly under Obama) for taking out random targets via drone airstrikes is just a modern equivalent of lynchings without trial.

The targets have committed crimes and hence should be apprehended and face a trial just like other mass murderers, and even those that commit war atrocities.

The U.S. has adopted this very Unconstitutional technique of trial by drone, essentially assuming guilt and killing not only the target but often their entire family, friends, neighbors and even sometimes US citizens.

Even 16 year old Malala Yousafzai has the sense to realize this is not only unjust, but also does nothing be recruit more extremists.

I commend Malala for having the guts to straight up tell Obama what the consequences of his drone techniques have been.

Hopefully once Obama is out of office the drone strike program is subdued or as least reigned in.
handfleisch
coolclay wrote:
The technique the United States has adopted recently (and mostly under Obama)
The drone strike program, part of the war on terror, started under Bush; in recent months the number of strikes have decreased http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/25/4557080/cia-cutting-down-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-fearing-public-outrage
coolclay wrote:
for taking out random targets via drone airstrikes
No, they are not random, not random at all. They are targets identified through a lot of work as terrorists.
coolclay wrote:
is just a modern equivalent of lynchings without trial.

A very poor comparison, entirely inaccurate, and pretty offensive to the legacy of African Americans and the Civil Rights struggle in the USA.
coolclay wrote:
The targets have committed crimes and hence should be apprehended and face a trial just like other mass murderers, and even those that commit war atrocities.
No, soldiers on the field in a battle don't get "apprehended."
coolclay wrote:
The U.S. has adopted this very Unconstitutional technique of trial by drone,
unconstitutional, sez who? There hasn't been any SCOTUS case
coolclay wrote:
killing not only the target but often their entire family, friends, neighbors and even sometimes US citizens. Even 16 year old Malala Yousafzai has the sense to realize this is not only unjust, but also does nothing be recruit more extremists. I commend Malala for having the guts to straight up tell Obama what the consequences of his drone techniques have been.

I agree.
coolclay wrote:

Hopefully once Obama is out of office the drone strike program is subdued or as least reigned in.
See first point; drone strikes have already decreased a lot.

There is more to the drone strike issue. If you had to live in an area controlled by the Taliban, you would probably be very happy for the drone strikes:
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/11/05/tensions-us-pakistan
Quote:
Well, that is true. I mean, there is a nuance to that which is quite interesting, which is that if you go - the closer you get to the places where the drones are actually landing, the more support for them there is. Now, that seems like a counterintuitive thing to say. But having just spent 10 days roaming around Pakistan, the horrors I'm about to share, I'm sure that's right.

And the reason is that these Taliban commanders and fighters are causing absolute havoc in the tribal areas. They are going around killing people, beheading them. They are cutting people's limbs off, writing graffiti in blood from severed limbs on walls, an absolutely depraved behavior. And people are terrified of them. And these drones come along and kill them.

So in the areas themselves where these drones are landing, there is actually a lot of people saying, they're extremely accurate, these drones, and they are killing some very frightening people.
Related topics
Blu-ray disc hits 100GB
Chinese Gov't: Smoking is great for Health
Sherlock Holmes Yes, No?
Partial Smoking ban breaches human rights - UK
"Stop Sending Aid to Africa!" says Kenyan economic
Wenger warns of Real danger ahead
Hellsing??
Bush's Border Buffoonery
Berserk
"Its not natural." And that makes it bad?
:: whats your favorite lyrics ::
BBC Headline :US warns of further bank failures
Volcano erupts smoke and ash grounding flights in Europe
Gulf Oil Spill Anniversary .... progress?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.