[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25463519]I'm going to take your word for it, I wouldn't dare call myself an expert on Islamic jurisprudence but that does not change the fact that it does happen. And whether that is a religious or cultural thing doesn't really matter.[/QUOTE]
Does that change the fact that America blew up japan? Change the fact that many Pakastanis have died from drones blowing up?
Don't give me the bull shit their are Terrorists in Peshawar.
[QUOTE=Yusuf;25463558]Does that change the fact that America blew up japan? Change the fact that many Pakastanis have died from drones blowing up?[/QUOTE]
Maybe not, but there's a principal difference, both of those you attribute to America, both occured (more or less) in a state of war and I'm not even American. Not that I would care even if I was.
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25463600]Maybe not, but there's a principal difference, both of those you attribute to America, both occured (more or less) in a state of war and I'm not even American. Not that I would care even if I was.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Maybe America should bomb your country and blow up drones and kill innocents, and they can use the excuse their were terrorists in your country.
No one would care because all humans are selfish beings amirite? No, Humans will pity those who are under attack even if they do not even know them.
[QUOTE=Yusuf;25463862]Yes, Maybe America should bomb your country and blow up drones and kill innocents, and they can use the excuse their were terrorists in your country.[/QUOTE]
Remember how Pakistani officials are giving the green light to these kind of operations? I'm sure they'd like to kill their own citizens for no purpose whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Yusuf;25463862]No one would care because all humans are selfish beings amirite? No, Humans will pity those who are under attack even if they do not even know them.[/QUOTE]
You caught me papi. I'm actually a sentient computer from the galactic core.
[U][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?925485-Islam-in-Britain"]Half a year ago.[/URL]
[/U]We have Starpluck (me), Warhol (Not Tishler's alt), Vintage Dinger (MingusMajor's alt) and Ecarnacion (CriticalThought's 4353th alt.)
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25463943]Remember how Pakistani officials are giving the green light to these kind of operations? I'm sure they'd like to kill their own citizens for no purpose whatsoever.
You caught me papi. I'm actually a sentient computer from the galactic core.[/QUOTE]
Zaldari is a corrupt bastard, and most likely a puppet in place, but what if your country had a corrupt officials? Than America bombed your country and raped it to the ground? Honestly you are making zero sense.
Look at it this way.
If your 75 year old uncle was blown up by drones, and than the people who did it did not even say sorry. How would you feel?
[QUOTE=Yusuf;25464350]Zaldari is a corrupt bastard, and most likely a puppet in place, but what if your country had a corrupt officials? Than America bombed your country and raped it to the ground? Honestly you are making zero sense.[/QUOTE]
You're making zero sense. What you have to realize is that the CIA is not run by the Prince of fucking Darkness, they are in Pakistan with clear goals in mind, to destroy or seriously distrupt the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operational capabilities by means direct and indirect. They don't spend millions of dollars on shooting dirt farmers. The Pakistani government greenlights these operations because the militants are a serious threat to the stabilty of Pakistan.
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25463288]rofl, so, that makes you proof that socialists do not possess the capacity for abstract thought? Or argumentation without resorting to ad hominems ("hey look at me i'm a teenage rebel you damn FASSIST!!!!) for that matter.[/QUOTE]
how do i english
[editline]17th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25464551]You're making zero sense. What you have to realize is that the CIA is not run by the Prince of fucking Darkness, they are in Pakistan with clear goals in mind, to destroy or seriously distrupt the Taliban and Al-Qaeda operational capabilities by means direct and indirect. They don't spend millions of dollars on shooting dirt farmers. The Pakistani government greenlights these operations because the militants are a serious threat to the stabilty of Pakistan.[/QUOTE]
Dirt farming is a new to me
So killing innocents is A-OK because the government says so?
[QUOTE=Warhol;25464640]Dirt farming is a new to me[/QUOTE]
It's an expression.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25464640]So killing innocents is A-OK because the government says so?[/QUOTE]
Wait, you're saying that this guy: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/07/taliban-leader-baitullah-mehsud-killed[/url]
Is innocent? Really?
no innocents died ever
god bless america
fuck people with darker skin then me, vintagedinger
[url]http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/2010/03/report-one-in-three-killed-by-drones-in-pakistan-is-a-civilian/[/url]
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25464831]
Wait, you're saying that this guy: [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/07/taliban-leader-baitullah-mehsud-killed[/url]
Is innocent? Really?[/QUOTE]
Did you just honestly just dig and find a valid drone death out of the thousands of dead civilians?
[QUOTE=starpluck;25464890]Did you just honestly just dig and find a valid drone death out of the thousands of dead civilians?[/QUOTE]
No, I googled "Taliban drone attack." It took me about 30 seconds.
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10748616[/url]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11487352[/url]
[QUOTE=Warhol;25464867]
[url]http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/2010/03/report-one-in-three-killed-by-drones-in-pakistan-is-a-civilian/[/url][/QUOTE]
You know, these arguments are kinda lost on me because I don't really give a fuck outside of a strictly geopolitical sense.
we are at 22 out of thousands now lol
[QUOTE=Warhol;25464963]we are at 22 out of thousands now lol[/QUOTE]
Total killed: 1,859 including about 500 civilians (As of October 15, 2010)[1]
[url]http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones[/url]
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25464947]No, I googled "Taliban drone attack." It took me about 30 seconds.
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10748616[/URL]
[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11487352[/URL]
.[/QUOTE]
Err no.
I must of worded it wrong or something. But it seems you are denying civilians are dying from drone attacks because " a Taliban fighter" got killed.
[QUOTE=starpluck;25465033]Err no.
I must of worded it wrong or something. But it seems you are denying civilians are dying from drone attacks because " a Taliban fighter" got killed.[/QUOTE]
Well, that wasn't what I was trying to convey at all. This is what I'm trying to say.
Total killed: 1,859 including about 500 civilians (As of October 15, 2010)
Now that Warhol has been called out on his bullshit again, let us return to the previous and very much unsettled debate.
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?1012063-Multicultural-Germany-turning-against-Muslims&p=25463519&viewfull=1#post25463519[/url]
Gently caress muslims. They dont like me, I dont like ethm.
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25465082]Well, that wasn't what I was trying to convey at all. This is what I'm trying to say.
Total killed: 1,859 including about 500 civilians (As of October 15, 2010)[/QUOTE]
lol.
The US killed 700 civilians in Pakistan drone strikes in [B]just[/B] 2009.
[URL]http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/02/us-killed-700-civilians-in-pakistan-drone-strikes-in-2009/[/URL]
[editline]17th October 2010[/editline]
If you're just going to blindly say "Antiwar in URL=BS source!" then I could say the same thing to a website that calls itself "counter-terrorism new America".
[QUOTE=starpluck;25465163]If you're just going to blindly say "Antiwar in URL=BS source!" then I could say the same thing to a website that calls itself "counter-terrorism new America".[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am gonna say that. If you took the time to read up on the New America Foundation you'd find this:
"The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States.
New America emphasizes work that is responsive to the changing conditions and problems of our 21st Century information-age economy -- an era shaped by transforming innovation and wealth creation, but also by shortened job tenures, longer life spans, mobile capital, financial imbalances and rising inequality.
The foundation's mission is animated by the American ideal that each generation will live better than the last. That ideal is today under strain. Our education and health care systems are struggling with problems of quality, cost and access. The country requires creative means to address its fiscal challenges and pay for needed public, social and environmental investments. Abroad, the United States has yet to fashion sustainable foreign and defense policies that will protect its citizens and interests in a rapidly integrating world.
Too often, these challenges have proven impervious to conventional party politics and incremental proposals. With an emphasis on big ideas, impartial analysis and pragmatic solutions, New America invests in outstanding individuals whose ability to communicate to wide and influential audiences can change the country's policy discourse in critical areas, bringing promising new ideas and debates to the fore."
and this:
"The research on these pages, which we have created in a good faith effort to be as transparent as possible with our sources and analysis and will be updated regularly, draws only on accounts from reliable media organizations with deep reporting capabilities in Pakistan, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks—the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC—and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan—the Daily Times, Dawn, and the News—as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network."
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25465221]Yes, I am gonna say that. If you took the time to read up on the New America Foundation you'd find this:
"The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States.
New America emphasizes work that is responsive to the changing conditions and problems of our 21st Century information-age economy -- an era shaped by transforming innovation and wealth creation, but also by shortened job tenures, longer life spans, mobile capital, financial imbalances and rising inequality.
The foundation's mission is animated by the American ideal that each generation will live better than the last. That ideal is today under strain. Our education and health care systems are struggling with problems of quality, cost and access. The country requires creative means to address its fiscal challenges and pay for needed public, social and environmental investments. Abroad, the United States has yet to fashion sustainable foreign and defense policies that will protect its citizens and interests in a rapidly integrating world.
Too often, these challenges have proven impervious to conventional party politics and incremental proposals. With an emphasis on big ideas, impartial analysis and pragmatic solutions, New America invests in outstanding individuals whose ability to communicate to wide and influential audiences can change the country's policy discourse in critical areas, bringing promising new ideas and debates to the fore."
and this:
"The research on these pages, which we have created in a good faith effort to be as transparent as possible with our sources and analysis and will be updated regularly, draws only on accounts from reliable media organizations with deep reporting capabilities in Pakistan, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks—the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC—and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan—the Daily Times, Dawn, and the News—as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network."[/QUOTE]
Why are you trying to prove by copying and pasting the "About Us" page. It doesn't negate anything.
[editline]17th October 2010[/editline]
[URL]http://antiwar.com/who.php[/URL]
[editline]17th October 2010[/editline]
Am I doing it right?
[QUOTE=starpluck;25465405]Why are you trying to prove by copying and pasting the "About Us" page. It doesn't negate anything.[/QUOTE]
It negates your claim that the people who put those statistics together are raving neo-conservatives who hunger for the blood of little brown babies. Unlike your source which speaks for itself. So, once again:
Total killed: 1,859 including about 500 civilians (As of October 15, 2010)
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/new-report-1-in-3-killed_n_488297.html[/url]
The Huffington Post seems to agree with me, strange considering their aversion to murderous psuedo-fascists right?
Or how about the New Yorker? [url]http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_mayer[/url]
The only other source that says only 500 people died is Wikipedia. And guess who do they cite? "Counterterrorism new America"
[editline]17th October 2010[/editline]
[URL="http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/05/2010530134138783448.html"]The Pakistan drone strikes almost certainly kill civilians, but exactly how many is the subject of much debate. Pakistani analysts claim the strikes overwhelmingly miss their targets: A study published in April 2009 claimed that 687 civilians had been killed, along with just 14 al-Qaeda members, a 50-to-1 ratio. A similar report, published in January 2010 in the Pakistani newspaper [I]Dawn[/I], cited more than 700 civilian casualties.[/URL]
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25465221]Yes, I am gonna say that. If you took the time to read up on the New America Foundation you'd find this:
"The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States.
New America emphasizes work that is responsive to the changing conditions and problems of our 21st Century information-age economy -- an era shaped by transforming innovation and wealth creation, but also by shortened job tenures, longer life spans, mobile capital, financial imbalances and rising inequality.
The foundation's mission is animated by the American ideal that each generation will live better than the last. That ideal is today under strain. Our education and health care systems are struggling with problems of quality, cost and access. The country requires creative means to address its fiscal challenges and pay for needed public, social and environmental investments. Abroad, the United States has yet to fashion sustainable foreign and defense policies that will protect its citizens and interests in a rapidly integrating world.
Too often, these challenges have proven impervious to conventional party politics and incremental proposals. With an emphasis on big ideas, impartial analysis and pragmatic solutions, New America invests in outstanding individuals whose ability to communicate to wide and influential audiences can change the country's policy discourse in critical areas, bringing promising new ideas and debates to the fore."
and this:
"The research on these pages, which we have created in a good faith effort to be as transparent as possible with our sources and analysis and will be updated regularly, draws only on accounts from reliable media organizations with deep reporting capabilities in Pakistan, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal, accounts by major news services and networks—the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, CNN, and the BBC—and reports in the leading English-language newspapers in Pakistan—the Daily Times, Dawn, and the News—as well as those from Geo TV, the largest independent Pakistani television network."[/QUOTE]
NAC was the poster child of the Bush administration.
hell, most of the Bush officials OWNED it
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25465467]It negates your claim that the people who put those statistics together are raving neo-conservatives who hunger for the blood of little brown babies. Unlike your source which speaks for itself. So, once again:
Total killed: 1,859 including about 500 civilians (As of October 15, 2010)
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/new-report-1-in-3-killed_n_488297.html[/url]
The Huffington Post seems to agree with me, strange considering their aversion to murderous psuedo-fascists right?[/QUOTE]
All right fair enough.
It says: Drone Attack Report: 1 in 3 Killed By Drones In Pakistan Is A Civilian. And you think that's good?
[editline]17th October 2010[/editline]
[url]http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2010/dear_congress_dont_blow_it_on_bush_tax_cuts_38387[/url]
Interesting.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25465534]NAC was the poster child of the Bush administration.
hell, most of the Bush officials OWNED it[/QUOTE]
This is not the Project for a New American Century.
[QUOTE=starpluck;25465555]It says: Drone Attack Report: 1 in 3 Killed By Drones In Pakistan Is A Civilian. And you think that's good?[/QUOTE]
Sure I do. There will always be collateral damage when you're fighting an enemy fond of using human shields and hiding in crowded areas.
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25465604]
Sure I do. There will always be collateral damage when you're fighting an enemy fond of using human shields and hiding in crowded areas.[/QUOTE]
Then why use drone strikes? :downs:
[QUOTE=starpluck;25465660]Then why use drone strikes? :downs:[/QUOTE]
yeah fuck, i mean we should just put down our guns and surrender right?
[QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;25465773]yeah fuck, i mean we should just put down our guns and surrender right?[/QUOTE]
Discouraging the use of drone strikes /=/ putting guns down and surrendering.
[QUOTE=VintageDinger;25465604]This is not the Project for a New American Century.
Sure I do. There will always be collateral damage when you're fighting an enemy fond of using human shields and hiding in crowded areas.[/QUOTE]
It's just as bad. It's a poster child for giant corporations
I don't think they expect the US to fire missiles into crowded areas. The US has bases in crowded cities all over the US. by your logic, they're using civilians as shields.
It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
[editline]17th October 2010[/editline]
"xxxXXXXXXxxxKILLERXXXxxxx"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
