News Stories

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I get your point, but I get Kyp's, too. Tragedy strikes the ass end of nowere, Foreignland, and nobody cares one way or the other. (Except the Foreignlandians, obviously.)

Tragedy strikes America, and people see it as a signal to climb on their soapbox and denounce what in this context is the victim.

Exactly, which is why I don't ever really voice that line of thinking (in this case, I was just responding to an already 'outed' idea by others). It's kind of insensitive because even if there's some truth to it, there really were victims present in this case too. They shouldn't be used as some kind of example of why we don't care about people in other parts of the world.

[Seitsuki]

People care about their own countrymen more than others. I don't see anything wrong or unusual with this.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

That is a stupid question. People live everywhere. They are not morally obligated to live in a cave and put a giant "terror man here" sign over it. Furthermore, every missile U.S fire into a dense neighborhood is like a giant recruitment AD for AQ. \

No it is not a stupid question. I guess you never heard of the use of human shields.

I would just like to know how you think the US should deal with this situations. Since obviously the terrorist is not as you say going to come out with a sign that says "kill me I am the bad man" but is going to hide out amongst the people. What should the US do instead?

And yes I feel bad for the innocent people in these countries who are caught between a war between the US and terrorists.

You avoid my question earlier. Also, while being a Bostonian myself, I am not fan of the people who did this (may they rot in hell), but if the bomber in question was actually aiming for a specific person in the crowd (say, a CIA agent who took the day to run), would that make his action legitimate?

Right because that is the way to target an individual, plant a bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon because you know exactly when the person you want to kill was going to run through.

No clearly this was an act of terrorism to kill and injure as many people as possible (and note I do not necessarily think it is an Islamic group)

Originally Posted by oompa loompa

Purpose? They died through an ACCIDENT that should have never happened.

Yeah you said the magic word, ACCIDENT. Accidents like this sadly happen during war. Could the accident have been prevented. Could the US do a better job of not harming non-combatants? Should the US be held accountable for the large number of civilians they kill in combat?

The answer to the above can all be YES and it still would not be comparable to what happened in Boston yesterday.

[Urzu 7]

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

The answer to the above can all be YES and it still would not be comparable to what happened in Boston yesterday.

They aren't the same thing, but when civilians get bombed in the middle east and loved ones are mourning, the U.S. saying "we are very sorry about this incident" and just calling it "collateral damage" isn't going to comfort them or ease the pain. I'm not equating these accidental bombings to terrorism, but those that survive the blasts and who lost loved ones must feel like those that were near the blasts in Boston yesterday.

I agree with you. The terrorists do exploit their own Muslim brothers and sisters. They will hide amongst innocent civilians and even hide in mosques as U.S. forces are trying to stamp out enemies. The terrorists know that when they are targeted, innocent people will die often. They could choose not to do this for the sake of many innocents, but they'd rather use them as pawns to further their goals via creating more hate in the hearts of their brethren and inspiring more of their brethren to join terrorist groups and factions. To Islamic terrorists, a human being is disposable when it is all for the glory of Allah. They're rotten people.

[GDB]

Possibly related to the bombings:

Poison laced letter sent to Senator

[Ithekro]

I would point out that the US methods in these other counties of targeting terrorist or even enemy soldiers is much more advanced and kills less people than they use too. Before the advent of laser guided and GPS guided munitions, they would drop a large number of bombs or artillery onto an area to kill or destroy a target. A much of the time they might miss the target but blow up everything in the general area. Today they can pinpoint a missile into an open hole, but that doesn't mean they can identify one person out of a thousand without sending in say snipers or the like (which might not be able to get close enough to begin with), so you might still get unwanted deaths from the single bomb or missile used, but it is a lot less than the old days when they had to saturate an area to get the same job done.

Though incorrect intel still causes problem even for the most advanced weaponry. How else do you accidentally hit a new Chinese embassy with a GPS guilded smart bomb. You either meant to hit the embassy, or the place was so new that the maps weren't even updated yet.

[ArchmageXin]

No it is not a stupid question. I guess you never heard of the use of human shields.

There is a difference between human shields and innocent bystanders. In order to qualify to be H.S they must be compelled to remain in a area where bombs are certainly possible.

A innocent bystander might not even know he is talking to an AQ agent, or may be against AQ in the first place, but were caught in the same areas a AQ person.

Case in point, in Yemen there was an Anti-AQ preacher who denounced AQ in his sermons and demand they get out of town. Rather than risking a mob reaction, they decided to go talk to him. On the day they met, a hellfire drone killed all 6 in a volley. How is that any different than planting bombs?

http://dronewarfare.wordpress.com/20...-drone-strike/

In effect, US spent at least $100,000 to

-Provide martyrdom to AQ members who wanted it.
-Killed two potential supporter of U.S
-Greatly enrage the community.

[Sumeragi]

And one case is enough to say an entire policy is wrong?

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

And one case is enough to say an entire policy is wrong?

There have been dozens of cases, if not hundreds. Even in the article General McCrystal saying drone strikes are counter productive. You can literally google hundreds of examples on Drone misuse.

Here is one.

http://www.catholic.org/internationa...y.php?id=50136

He explained that Pashtun men dress the same as the Taliban and they often carry weapons, which is part of their culture. However, this commonly causes operators to make mistakes and fire on innocents.

Now some Pashtun fear carrying weapons and congregating in groups with other men.

Part of the problem for the U.S. is that Pashtun culture requires vengeance for murder, so when innocent men are killed, it drives sons and those around them into terrorist hands in a quest for vengeance. In this way, the drone policy is creating more terrorists.

[Ridwan]

You know what went wrong with US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq ?

Invading them is what went wrong.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

You know what went wrong with US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq ?

Invading them is what went wrong.

Afghanistan was unavoidable after 9/11

[Ridwan]

Unfortunately so.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

You know what went wrong with US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq ?

Invading them is what went wrong.

I think short of a few crazed Neo-cons, that boat has already sailed...

[RRW]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

You know what went wrong with US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq ?

Invading them is what went wrong.

Well they want finish what they started

[kuroishinigami]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Afghanistan was unavoidable after 9/11

And here I shall repeat once more. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and we all end up with no eye and no tooth

I mean, I can't understand why war was unavoidable after 9/11. There is an alternative, for example, strengthen your nation security, try to win over Afghanistan's people, and use them to weed out the so called terrorist(for some of the ME people, US is the terrorist for bombing their home I would guess) for one. Sure it will take longer and more costy, but the result will also last longer instead of speeding their recruiting process. Sun Tzu once said, the best victory is to win without fighting. I guess US military thinks they know better about general strategy than Sun Tzu when they decide to bomb the whole country

Anyway, Boston bombing is another incident altogether. My thoughts goes to the one left behind. Hopefully security will be heightened in further events. One shining beacon in incidents like this though, it's during toughest time such as this that it's clear there's still some hope for humanity after all. Now, if only we can apply this during normal situation as well, the world might be a much better place

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by kuroishinigami

And here I shall repeat once more. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and we all end up with no eye and no tooth

I mean, I can't understand why war was unavoidable after 9/11. There is an alternative, for example, strengthen your nation security, try to win over Afghanistan's people, and use them to weed out the so called terrorist(for some of the ME people, US is the terrorist for bombing their home I would guess) for one. Sure it will take longer and more costy, but the result will also last longer instead of speeding their recruiting process. Sun Tzu once said, the best victory is to win without fighting. I guess US military thinks they know better about general strategy than Sun Tzu when they decide to bomb the whole country

Well, I think it was certainly a mistake to declare a war on terror. One lecturer I heard said that the better thing to do would've been to just treat bin Laden as a criminal and made the operation focused on his capture rather than the occupation of Afghanistan.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Well, I think it was certainly a mistake to declare a war on terror. One lecturer I heard said that the better thing to do would've been to just treat bin Laden as a criminal and made the operation focused on his capture rather than the occupation of Afghanistan.

That was John Kerry's plan, treating Bin and Co as a law enforcement problem rather than a military broad-axe and invade.

His ideas were soundly rejected.

[Sumeragi]

I'll post the question then: Supposing from the start Osama Bin Laden was captured. What do you do after that?

[Destined_Fate]

Have a sham trial than have him executed which in turn angers his followers who than try and get revenge?

Death only begets more death, it's human nature.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I'll post the question then: Supposing from the start Osama Bin Laden was captured. What do you do after that?

Afghanistan isn't our country, so we'd GTFO as far as I'm concerned