Ibrahim wrote:Doc wrote:Ibrahim wrote:
So you already concede that winning is secondary to minimizing casualties. E.g. the Vietnamese defeated the US, or the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany, with relative disregard for their own casualties. However, the US drone campaigns are failing, so the fact that the pilots melting children via remote control are safe doesn't really enter into the equation. Unless you want to give them a medal for being especially safe while they fail.
I said no such thing as you are well aware. Shame on you Ibrahim. No matter how effective the drone campaign are at killing members of the higher ups in Al Qaeda And they have been very effective at that.
Its exactly what you just argued. Furthermore the drone campaign has clearly been a failure, and AQAP is resurgent in no small part because of the failure of the drone campaign.
Ibrahim watching you constantly spin what I said gets real old. I said the drone strikes have been highly effective at killing high ranking members of AL Qaeda. In that sense it has not been a failure. What it has failed at is winning hearts and minds. I suspect that Obama doesn't give a hoot about that. As long as he can show he is killing high ranking members of Al Qaeda. But now the election is over so it will be interesting how much longer it will be before he declares total victory over Al Qaeda and ignores the folks he has POed in Pakistan. But Hey I didn't break it and I am not buying it.
The idea of double tapping target sites is wrong. As is the intentional targeting of civilians as the primary target by Islamists is even more wrong.
Why are you so interested in "double-tapping" but not the civilians killed in a single strike?
A double tap infers that civilians are going to be killed. It is possible to be sure on the first strike that the bad guys will be there. Not too many drive ambulances for example.
What is the moral difference? Al Qaeda bombs things knowing full well it will kill civilians, the US bombs people knowing full well it will kill civilians. What's the difference?
That's my point about double taps.
However apparently in your book there is only one wrong to be discussed here.
The thread is about drone strikes. Thus, within the thread I only talk about drone strikes. Or did until you changed the subject.
Yeah I know how much you like to compartmentalize things so you only have to talk about what you want too. I am not buying that either.
Are you going to tell me to start another thread where I may end up being banned?
I will be banned long before you. But you do or say whatever you have the courage to do or say. Don't we all?
Well I certainly hope you are not banned. And I would be surprised and disappointed if you were.
The US and Israel always claim this, but the claim is laughably transparent propaganda. The US is so concerned about civilians that it murders them daily pursuing ineffective strategies, and often in theaters that we know for a fact they are about to abandon anyway. Yet you tortuously attempt to defend this rather than admitting that the US could, if it wanted, just stop killing all of these people for no benefit.
The US has spent trillions and lost many US military personnel in order not to kill civilians. Al Qaeda intentionally kills civilians Targets them with bombs Cuts off their heads. Cuts off hands. Throws acid in the faces of girls that just want to go to school. And in general act like filthy pigs. But somehow you can't bring yourself to own up to that.
The US military/PMC kills civilians, burns them or explodes them with missiles, shoots them, rapes and murders them, fires into their cars for fun, urinates on corpses, detains and tortures without evidence. This is all fact. I see no difference between them, or at least some of them, and al Qaeda in terms of actual conduct. Your claim that I deny that al Qaeda murders civilians is blatantly false, so nothing more to say about that except to await your apology.
Finally.
What you seem to really stress is that the US doesn't mean to kill civilians. Yet it keeps doing it, so I guess they must be totally incompetent instead of malicious. It doesn't really interest me why they keep doing it, but it would be nice if they stopped. It would help fight extremism too, but apparently killing civilians and intended targets with drones is more important than actually preventing terrorism. Almost like somebody profits from it... oh wait.
The drone strikes aside, as they come from the current US regime, In Sherman's words War is hell. People inherently die. Smart bombs fail. Incorrect information is acted on. Bad apples come along. The middle east needed change and now change is happening. It is re-arraigning itself as it badly needed. After 911 Muslim were in some quarters throwing candy to children in celebration. Bin Laden was a hero. Last time I checked Bin Laden and Al Qaeda weren't all that popular any more.
Those quarters brought war to the US and killed those three thousand people nearly as much as Bin Laden did by their support. Bin Laden lost that support when he started killing Muslims and not just Americans.
But as I said change is working in the ME. Maybe it will work out well maybe it won't.
The US has traditionally been among the nations that care to limit civilian deaths. And rightly so.
The US has been one of the most enthusiastic murderers of (foreign) civilians in the modern era, and the first to utilize massive firebombing campaigns, and famously nuclear arms, on civilian populations, all within living memory. At best you can say that other people
would have been as murderous if they
could have at the time.
WWII is an ancient war by today's standards.
You said "traditionally." I was simply correcting you on the historical record. Did you mean "traditionally" since... what year exactly?
Since at least Vietnam.
They were as guilty as the children slain by US drones. Moreover, the US military has gone on to slaughter far more than 3000 civilians in the aftermath of 9/11, so even in this comparison in terms of murdering civilians Bin Laden is a pathetic bungler next to the US military.
Sorry Ibrahim that is simply not true. Al Qaeda terrorist attacks have killed far far more civilians than the US military.
A false claim produced by what I'm sure you know is selective counting. You conveniently exclude the many thousands killed in the Iraq and Afghan wars, not to mention the knock-on deaths due to instability created by the invasions, but I don't even need to add them to dwarf the AQ kill list.
The primary murders in Iraq were Islamist. They even bragged about killing civilians. That is was their honor that they were killed by Car bombs and Suicide bombs.
Nonetheless, the US killed huge numbers of civilians in Iraq, and in fact armed and paid some of those groups that eventually turned out to contain extremists, so arguably many of the gangland-style killings and bombings done by various Iraqi militias are also the fault of the US.
Besides, you are moving the goalposts. I was simply stating the fact that the US military has killed more civilians that al Qaeda has, but after realizing that I'm correct you have started referring to "Islamists" to try and pad your false numbers.
No I am fine with saying Al Qaeda and affliated groups have killed 10,000's of thousands. Not as many say as Saddam killed. But certainly more civilian deaths have occurred at the hands of Al Qaeda in Iraq. This is true in many other parts of the ME Africa, Indonesia, and India in the case of affiliated groups. In Afghanistan the Taliban have killed many. In Pakistan the native Pakistan Taliban with their ISI handlers. In Iraq more were killed in Sunni-Shia violence after Al Qaeda in Iraq's defeat there. Iran certainly played a larger part in that.
How many videos of American PMCs firing into civilian vehicles for fun have leaked so far?[/quote
Those were not US military.
That is correct, they were ex-US military paid by the US government to provide military services in Iraq. Feel better now?
As I recall they were hired by the Hilary Clinton State dept. In any case they were not in the military chain of command.
How many videos of murderous Islamic thugs are there out there saying Ally Akbar as they killed?
Lots. Feel better about the murders and rapes PMCs commit in the name of the US government now? No need to worry if your tax dollars are funding evil so long as some AQ guy elsewhere is just as bad.
Much worse. They are not equivalent. AQ can target civilians from the get go. The US Military has tried not to kill civilians The different despite your protestations is day and night. Saddam for example killed 100,000 Shites in the south of Iraq after the first gulf war. Killed thousands of Kurds and started a war that killed 1 million Iranians. Invaded Kuwait and killed thousands there. He should have been removed from power decades ago. His departure lead to the deaths of around 100,000 Iraqis. as said previously war is hell. But do you really widh to argue that the world is a poorer place because Saddam is no longer dictator of Iraq? The Libya isn't still run by Ghadaffi ? That Mubarack is not still leader of Egypt or his son is not now leader there? That Assad is not in full control of Syria?
You believe this to be a rare occurrence? Then we have legitimate accidental killings by US occupation forces, all the "shock and awe" collateral damage, all the people slain in the urban fighting in Fallujah, and so on. Then all the people murdered by militias or tribes paid by the US to counter other militias backed by Iran or containing Baathists. And this is just Iraq. I don't think you're even thinking through these claims before you make this, you are so obviously incorrect here.
The over whelming majority of dead civilians died at the hands of Muslims
.
Again, you are moving the goalposts because you know that your initial claim was false. Don't feel bad for trying this or getting caught, I see it all the time.[/quote]
Moreover, you are comforting yourself with moral relativism. As long as US armed forces murder 1000 babies and various swarthy extremists murder 1001 babies you don't need to worry, you're "better than them." I see this all the time as well.[/quote]
No I don't agree that my Initial claim is false. You wish compartmentalize as I said before. That allows you wiggle room to claim moral equivalency where it does not exist. I am not buying it.
And in fact Bin Laden and Al Qaeda standard method of operations is plainly aimed at killing as many civilians as possible.
Absolutely correct. These days the US just doesn't care if it kills civilians, and even so the US has killed far more than Bin Laden without even trying to.
Except you are lying about who killed more by a large margin.
No, not at all. This is another false and dishonest accusation, as you well know. You will recall that I was referring specifically to al Qaeda, in fact specifically to OBL, and the US military has slaughtered far more civilians than that abruptly retired terrorist.[/quote]
Well lets see you previously were going back to WWII to make that claim. Talk about moving goal posts.
795 people died in one single car bomb attack in Iraq as I recall. Mental retard persons were being smuggled into Iraq from Saudi arabia as well as other places to drive those bombs. Many drivers were found to be tied to the car bombs they were driving. Members of their families held hostage in order to assure that they would go through with the attacks. At one point a bomber waited at a street corner while US troops gave out candy to Iraqi children Waited for more children to show up so as to kill more of them.
I made no false claim and it does show that you play with half truths as much as you can.
This is yet another false and unsubstantiated claim.[/quote]
- TIB.jpg (20.56 KiB) Viewed 1567 times
From what I can see you want a Muslim caliphate.
Laughably false claim based on your personal prejudices.
Is it ? [/quote]
Obviously.[/quote]
So you are willing to state that you don't want a caliphate. I call that progress Ibrahim.
you so blatantly ignore what Al Qaeda does and refuse to address it.
Yet another false and unsubstantiated claim.[/quote]
Yet another non denial denial.