• Drones 'inhumane' dead Al-Qaeda man's family says...(irony?)
    136 replies, posted
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36227887]Damnit, why are our new supersoldiers commandeering tanks and driving straight at the enemy so often?[/QUOTE] Because we're not recruiting enough RO players
[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;36227970]They are similar but drones do not allow both parties to have an equal opportunity to defend themselves.[/QUOTE] Because the point of war after all, of course, is to be fair and considerate to the enemy
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;36227775]"War as a video game - what better way to raise the ultimate soldier?" Solid Snake called this shit[/QUOTE] [quote=Eva in MGS4]There are countless child soldiers like these in the PMCs. Nowadays, anyone with a computer can get combat training. The FPS games these children love are distributed for free by these companies. Of course, it's all just virtual training. It's so easy for them to get absorbed by these war games. And before they know it, they're in the PMCs holding real guns.[/quote] Pretty much, yeah.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36227921]They started it.[/QUOTE] what a fucking horrible outlook on the deaths of millions, and the destruction of thousands of innocents' homes. sure it's hypocritical for either sides to talk about 'humane' killings, but if the US ever actually wants to [i]help[/i] the middle east, it's not done through firing missiles at people they see holding ak47s through a tiny camera. drones should be for reconnaissance, not a missile that's going to cause a shitload of collateral 'they started it' just doesn't cut it over 10 years on from 9/11, now the world's most expensive military has to decide whether or not they're childishly killing and periodically executing people they believe to be dangerous through robots or whether or not they're actually protecting the people of these countries.
[QUOTE=Bobie;36228019]what a fucking horrible outlook on the deaths of millions, and the destruction of thousands of innocents' homes. sure it's hypocritical for either sides to talk about 'humane' killings, but if the US ever actually wants to [i]help[/i] the middle east, it's not done through firing missiles at people they see holding ak47s through a tiny camera. drones should be for reconnaissance, not a missile that's going to cause a shitload of collateral 'they started it' just doesn't cut it over 10 years on from 9/11, now the world's most expensive military has to decide whether or not they're childishly killing and periodically executing people they believe to be dangerous through robots or whether or not they're actually protecting the people of these countries.[/QUOTE] Humor scanner is broken.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36227921]They started it.[/QUOTE] So what? We're supposed to be better than them. The fact that they bombed first doesn't have any bearing on whether our methods live up to our own standards and pretenses of morality and justice. Being hit first doesn't give us carte blanche to do whatever it takes to get back at them, with indiscriminate collateral damage to the civilian populace.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36228053]Humor scanner is broken.[/QUOTE] more like your sense of humor is complete and utter shit
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36228053]Humor scanner is broken.[/QUOTE] yes him finding your joke distasteful and stupid is definitely just him having no sense of humor and not you being unfunny and generally terrible
"We are in the 21st century" This from a group that wants to return to the dark ages.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36227921]They started it.[/QUOTE] lol
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36228416]"We are in the 21st century" This from a group that wants to return to the dark ages.[/QUOTE] a. missing the piont b. i don't think the brother is even a member of al qaeda, unless im misreading the article
Surely the 3 laws of robotics make drones illegal.
So IEDs and suicide bombs are humane then?
Of course there will be collateral damage with drones, however, it is worth the risk. And what would be a better way to take out Al Quaeda leaders? Seriously, this is the safest way to eliminate high value targets without putting the lives of OUR soldiers on the line.
[QUOTE=neigleig;36228868]Of course there will be collateral damage with drones, however, it is worth the risk. And what would be a better way to take out Al Quaeda leaders? Seriously, this is the safest way to eliminate high value targets without putting the lives of OUR soldiers on the line.[/QUOTE] much better to put crowds of unaware civilians caught up in a war they had no choice in at risk then?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36228877]much better to put crowds of unaware civilians caught up in a war they had no choice in at risk then?[/QUOTE] Yes.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36228908]Yes.[/QUOTE] is this another shitty joke or are you being serious in suggesting its better to kill civilians than let a trained military take the risk
[QUOTE=neigleig;36228868]Of course there will be collateral damage with drones, however, it is worth the risk. And what would be a better way to take out Al Quaeda leaders? Seriously, this is the safest way to eliminate high value targets without putting the lives of OUR soldiers on the line.[/QUOTE] It's what "OUR" soldiers sign up for, risking innocent lives on something that they have no involvement in isn't noble and it certainly doesn't make a soldier a hero just because they can type in some co-ordinates into a computer.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36228946]is this another shitty joke or are you being serious in suggesting its better to kill civilians than let a trained military take the risk[/QUOTE] they're brown so obviously they're worth less than us white Americans
[QUOTE=neigleig;36228868]Of course there will be collateral damage with drones, however, it is worth the risk. And what would be a better way to take out Al Quaeda leaders? Seriously, this is the safest way to eliminate high value targets without putting the lives of OUR soldiers on the line.[/QUOTE] i thought the idea was though that getting rid of al qaeda in a clean fashion would help bring the whole middle east off the ground and start progressing faster in terms of human rights and ethics if you start killing a shitload of civilians to promote your ideologies however, you may as well [i]be[/i] al qaeda
People are going to die either way, there will always be civilian casualties, unfortunately, and mistakes are made, but the missions that get publicized are the ones that kill civilians, but god knows how many there have been that work out perfectly.
[QUOTE=neigleig;36229069]People are going to die either way, there will always be civilian casualties, unfortunately, and mistakes are made, but the missions that get publicized are the ones that kill civilians, but god knows how many there have been that work out perfectly.[/QUOTE] lol wikileaks uncovered thousands of previously unknown civilian deaths. so much for your theory.
[QUOTE=neigleig;36229069]People are going to die either way, there will always be civilian casualties, unfortunately, and mistakes are made, but the missions that get publicized are the ones that kill civilians, but god knows how many there have been that work out perfectly.[/QUOTE] why do i feel like you would think differently if we were Afghanistan and North Korea was America [editline]7th June 2012[/editline] by the way you don't wash away hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths with "well.. not all of the missions fail spectacularly", its kind of a big deal
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36227921]They started it.[/QUOTE] I didn't know that we were tattling to the teacher about all of this
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36229094]why do i feel like you would think differently if we were Afghanistan and North Korea was America [editline]7th June 2012[/editline] by the way you don't wash away hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths with "well.. not all of the missions fail spectacularly", its kind of a big deal[/QUOTE] Of course i would, I mean it would be near impossible to support a country halfway across the world always watching over you, considering you no more than collateral damage if they killed you in an attempt to take out another target, but there is really no GOOD way to carry out these missions, and the position that the coalition countries and the middle east is in is terrible.
What, they attached death beams that literally fry a person to death leaving only a half dead charred corpse? Because thats the only way it could be inhumane compared to Al Qaeda's MOs.
[QUOTE=neigleig;36229185]Of course i would, I mean it would be near impossible to support a country halfway across the world always watching over you, considering you no more than collateral damage if they killed you in an attempt to take out another target, but there is really no GOOD way to carry out these missions, and the position that the coalition countries and the middle east is in is terrible.[/QUOTE] so even though you know its completely fucked up and inhuman, its just "too bad" because you can't be arsed to let volunteer soldiers who willingly signed up to put themselves in harm way, do their jobs? nah that's too risky, better just kill a bunch of civilians instead. while we're at it, why not just nuke the place? i mean yeah there'd be a lot of collateral but really it's the only way for us to verify that we've killed our targets without putting any soldiers in harms way.
His family deserved to be drone'd too because they are obviously stupid and support terrorism.
[QUOTE=Aff3;36227285]Griefing would now become a war crime.[/QUOTE] gibe mone or i blow up ur family huehuehue
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36229275]so even though you know its completely fucked up and inhuman, its just "too bad" because you can't be arsed to let volunteer soldiers who willingly signed up to put themselves in harm way, do their jobs? nah that's too risky, better just kill a bunch of civilians instead. while we're at it, why not just nuke the place? i mean yeah there'd be a lot of collateral but really it's the only way for us to verify that we've killed our targets without putting any soldiers in harms way.[/QUOTE] I support volunteer soldiers being sent in under certain circumstances, but the US government clearly puts the lives of soldiers over the lives of civilians, and has chosen to utilize new technology over "boots on the ground", which often ends in the loss of more lives than drone attacks, such as last year when a Chinook was shot down and 38 soldiers killed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.