[QUOTE=DaMastez;37327359]See, this is the problem, for some reason it seems the majority of the public want the U.S. (and the other NATO countries) to follow the "rules" and be civilized, regardless of what tactics the enemy is using.
That's not how you win wars, that's not how you crush the opposition; being nice isn't the most efficient way to end the conflict, and doesn't seem to be winning the hearts of the people over there (assuming we haven't been being dicks from the start).
By trying to be the good guy's the US only hurts itself; by targeting rescuers the US is sending the message that you don't help people hit by drones unless you want to be next. Besides, those people going to help those hurt in drone attacks are effectively aiding the enemy, and as such are fair game. Targeting mourners is, agreeable, rather distasteful, but there is sound logic behind it (not that it makes it all that much better, but at least they aren't just randomly shooting civilians).
Perhaps this comes off as harsh, but from my point of view, it seems the majority of people over there don't wan't us there and either do nothing or actively help the enemy, so why should we be so damn concerned with protecting them? It's not like they seem to care enough about the US's, and other countries, civilian losses to help apprehend the terrorists.
Don't get me wrong, I don't even think the US should be there because it's a massive waste; but as long as they are, I don't see a problem with shooting rescuers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of the country's civilian population doesn't do shit to help get rid of the terrorists, do they?
Do you think the survivors from the attack are going to have a sudden change of heart and decide the US are great and there's no need to try and kill them anymore?[/QUOTE]
You're stupid.
[QUOTE=The golden;37327498]What the fuck are you doing DaMastez[/QUOTE]
I think he switched into fullretard mode and forgot to turn it off
i thought we all knew the US was nothing better than what it claims it's trying to fight
[QUOTE=smeismastger;37327422]Please tell me you are joking here and not seriously this retarded[/QUOTE]
I am. Or rather the only information I really have to go off of is news posted here, so I would say I'm miss-informed.
My general understanding is the majority of the people in the country don't want the US there and would rather they would just leave. I would suspect this sediment is greater in the more remote areas than in the more populated cities, but exists in both.
If this is wrong, as you're response seems to suggest it is, please correct me. I'm not trying to troll or whatever it would be considered, this is legitimately my understanding of the situation.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37327540]I am. Or rather the only information I really have to go off of is news posted here, so I would say I'm miss-informed.
My general understanding is the majority of the people in the country don't want the US there and would rather they would just leave. I would suspect this sediment is greater in the more remote areas than in the more populated cities, but exists in both.
If this is wrong, as you're response seems to suggest it is, please correct me. I'm not trying to troll or whatever it would be considered, this is legitimately my understanding of the situation.[/QUOTE]
You wrote a small essay about how the civilians deserved to be bombed and now you go "lol just kidding I don't really know what's going on there XD"
Yeah, okay.
[QUOTE=smeismastger;37327609]You wrote a small essay about how the civilians deserved to be bombed and now you go "lol just kidding I don't really know what's going on there XD"[/QUOTE]
i don't think he was necessarily justifying it, rather noting his opinions on what he thinks the US is trying to accomplish through doing so and how they see it
i hope
[QUOTE=Spool;37327511]You're stupid.[/QUOTE]
Care to explain in more detail?
I've gathered from the replies I've been miss-informed in some way; I suspect it's with regards to the civilians population's opinion towards the US and NATO forces being their (as that is what I based the majority of my post off of).
[QUOTE=Bobie;37327623]i don't think he was necessarily justifying it, rather noting his opinions on what he thinks the US is trying to accomplish through doing so and how they see it
i hope[/QUOTE]
The general tone of his post suggests that he thinks the afghans are to blame
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37327359]See, this is the problem, for some reason it seems the majority of the public want the U.S. (and the other NATO countries) to follow the "rules" and be civilized, regardless of what tactics the enemy is using.
That's not how you win wars-[/quote]
At that point I knew all I needed.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37327359]See, this is the problem, for some reason it seems the majority of the public want the U.S. (and the other NATO countries) to follow the "rules" and be civilized, regardless of what tactics the enemy is using.
That's not how you win wars, that's not how you crush the opposition; being nice isn't the most efficient way to end the conflict, and doesn't seem to be winning the hearts of the people over there (assuming we haven't been being dicks from the start).
By trying to be the good guy's the US only hurts itself; by targeting rescuers the US is sending the message that you don't help people hit by drones unless you want to be next. Besides, those people going to help those hurt in drone attacks are effectively aiding the enemy, and as such are fair game. Targeting mourners is, agreeable, rather distasteful, but there is sound logic behind it (not that it makes it all that much better, but at least they aren't just randomly shooting civilians).
Perhaps this comes off as harsh, but from my point of view, it seems the majority of people over there don't wan't us there and either do nothing or actively help the enemy, so why should we be so damn concerned with protecting them? It's not like they seem to care enough about the US's, and other countries, civilian losses to help apprehend the terrorists.
Don't get me wrong, I don't even think the US should be there because it's a massive waste; but as long as they are, I don't see a problem with shooting rescuers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of the country's civilian population doesn't do shit to help get rid of the terrorists, do they?
Do you think the survivors from the attack are going to have a sudden change of heart and decide the US are great and there's no need to try and kill them anymore?[/QUOTE]
I really hope you one day have to experience what the Afghans have been through. When I see it on the news I will simply laugh and say to myself " At least that cunt, DaMastez gets whats coming to him" :)
[QUOTE=Jackald;37327669]I don't know how you can think the US is morally justified in using the exact same tactics that it supposedly finds so abhorrent.[/QUOTE]
These tactics are directly taken from known terrorist groups like the IRA and Hamas.
This shit is indefensible. When people who aren't American's use it it's terror, when America does it it's "war".
It doesn't really matter, the Bush administration proved that the US gets a pass on war crimes and nobody will ever be held accountable. American voters don't care about a bunch of brown people getting blown up on the other side of the world.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;37327731]These tactics are directly taken from known terrorist groups like the IRA and Hamas.
This shit is indefensible. When people who aren't American's use it it's terror, when America does it it's "war".[/QUOTE]
So this whole is basically Terror on Terrorism.
Hah.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37327359]See, this is the problem, for some reason it seems the majority of the public want the U.S. (and the other NATO countries) to follow the "rules" and be civilized, regardless of what tactics the enemy is using.
That's not how you win wars, that's not how you crush the opposition; being nice isn't the most efficient way to end the conflict, and doesn't seem to be winning the hearts of the people over there (assuming we haven't been being dicks from the start).[/quote]
It doesn't seem to be working because it's not what we're doing. What we're doing is random predator drone strikes. We're not being 'nice' (aka civilized), so they don't see us as good people, and thus they hate us more. So the solution is to keep being assholes? Sure, that will get rid of the people who hate us! Surely it won't just cause more hate!
[quote]By trying to be the good guy's the US only hurts itself; by targeting rescuers the US is sending the message that you don't help people hit by drones unless you want to be next. Besides, those people going to help those hurt in drone attacks are effectively aiding the enemy, and as such are fair game. Targeting mourners is, agreeable, rather distasteful, but there is sound logic behind it (not that it makes it all that much better, but at least they aren't just randomly shooting civilians). [/quote]
Except that by targeting rescuers (and random civilians, which they [I]are[/I] doing), we're only making people hate us more. If we [I]didn't[/I] blow shit up and kill people for no reason, then the populace wouldn't hate us.
[quote]Perhaps this comes off as harsh, but from my point of view, it seems the majority of people over there don't wan't us there and either do nothing or actively help the enemy, so why should we be so damn concerned with protecting them? It's not like they seem to care enough about the US's, and other countries, civilian losses to help apprehend the terrorists. [/quote]
As you said, [I]all they want is for us to leave[/I]. They want us to leave because we kill a lot of innocent civilians. We then [I]target[/I] these people that just want us to leave, along with many more innocent civilians. If we would [I]just fucking leave, [B]they would stop attacking us and trying to get us to leave.[/B][/I] We're not rating you dumb because you're wrong about people hating us. We're rating you dumb because you think that attacking more civilians will somehow solve the problem of civilians turning into terrorists and attacking us in retaliation. [I]These attacks are causing there to be terrorists in the first place[/I].
[quote]Don't get me wrong, I don't even think the US should be there because it's a massive waste; but as long as they are, I don't see a problem with shooting rescuers.[/quote] Because they're human goddamn beings.
[quote]Do you think the survivors from the attack are going to have a sudden change of heart and decide the US are great and there's no need to try and kill them anymore?[/QUOTE]
Do you think that by attacking civilians, the civilians are going to have a sudden change of heart and decide the US are great and there's no need to hate the US?
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37327359]See, this is the problem, for some reason it seems the majority of the public want the U.S. (and the other NATO countries) to follow the "rules" and be civilized, regardless of what tactics the enemy is using.
That's not how you win wars, that's not how you crush the opposition; being nice isn't the most efficient way to end the conflict, and doesn't seem to be winning the hearts of the people over there (assuming we haven't been being dicks from the start).
By trying to be the good guy's the US only hurts itself; by targeting rescuers the US is sending the message that you don't help people hit by drones unless you want to be next. Besides, those people going to help those hurt in drone attacks are effectively aiding the enemy, and as such are fair game. Targeting mourners is, agreeable, rather distasteful, but there is sound logic behind it (not that it makes it all that much better, but at least they aren't just randomly shooting civilians).
Perhaps this comes off as harsh, but from my point of view, it seems the majority of people over there don't wan't us there and either do nothing or actively help the enemy, so why should we be so damn concerned with protecting them? It's not like they seem to care enough about the US's, and other countries, civilian losses to help apprehend the terrorists.
Don't get me wrong, I don't even think the US should be there because it's a massive waste; but as long as they are, I don't see a problem with shooting rescuers.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of the country's civilian population doesn't do shit to help get rid of the terrorists, do they?
Do you think the survivors from the attack are going to have a sudden change of heart and decide the US are great and there's no need to try and kill them anymore?[/QUOTE]
Your intelligence is so abysmally low it ought to be the stuff of legend.
Let me try and explain this to you using simple words so it doesn't hurt your head too much.
Pakistan is a country in which the USA has no business being. They have their own borders, their own laws, and they are independent. The USA sending armed drones over their borders to kill Pakistani civilians is an act of war. The USA is conducting a hostile invasion of Pakistan.
The equivalent would be the Chinese government sending armed drones to kill American civilians who have strong anti-communist leanings.
The bad guys here? The U.S. Government.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;37327731]These tactics are directly taken from known terrorist groups like the IRA and Hamas.
This shit is indefensible. When people who aren't American's use it it's terror, when America does it it's "war".[/QUOTE]
[I]If the "terrorists" were to preform a drone strike on some US soldiers then blow up the civilians who came to aid those soldiers, would it not be considered an act of war rather than an act of terror.[/I]
As I wrote that sentence, I realized just how messed up that sounded. Of course civilians are going to try and help injured soldiers, because they are people first and soldiers second.
I'm sorry I led the thread down this path, but I don't regret posting what I did; if I hadn't I would have kept on thinking the way I was.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37327916][I]If the "terrorists" were to preform a drone strike on some US soldiers then blow up the civilians who came to aid those soldiers, would it not be considered an act of war rather than an act of terror.[/I]
As I wrote that sentence, I realized just how messed up that sounded. Of course civilians are going to try and help injured soldiers, because they are people first and soldiers second.
I'm sorry I led the thread down this path, but I don't regret posting what I did; if I hadn't I would have kept on thinking the way I was.[/QUOTE]
there is hope for you yet
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/heart.png[/img]
Pakistan is a country in a very, very bad spot. Its government lacks the support of its people because it lacks the capacity to defend them against the Americans and the Taliban. The government has to bend over and allow itself to be bullied by the USA, because the USA needs just one legitimate excuse to conduct a full-scale invasion of Pakistan and overthrow its government. If the government refuses the USA, the US invades, and India, official ally of the USA and Arch-nemesis of Pakistan, will use that opportunity to invade from the south to 'assist' US troops, thereby settling their own scores. Pakistan would be utterly destroyed.
[QUOTE=The golden;37327498]What the fuck are you doing DaMastez[/QUOTE]
your avatar was my reaction to his post
[QUOTE=Bobie;37327967]there is hope for you yet
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/heart.png[/img][/QUOTE]
Thanks.
I feel rather stupid right now. Looking back on my original post, it's so full of flawed logic, I really don't know how I rationalized it in my head.
This is utterly deranged. It makes me more depressed than anything else in the world. The fight against terrorism wasn't just a fight for physical security, it was a fight for our moral souls to not become the monsters we were fighting.
We lost.
This is something that really shows that in the realm of Human Rights abuses, thought Obama may not be leading America down this path like Bush did, he's doing very little to take us off it.
[QUOTE=imperialrock;37322791]I guess I'm just too seperated from the conflict to really feel anything but resigned to this sort of thing, maybe I just have foolish faith in the American government in this case, I don't know.[/QUOTE]
you should go over there and fight for your country. when you come back in a bodybag it won't matter as it's just war.
i guess it makes me a bad person when i say i couldnt give 2 shits about these people
[QUOTE=InChoFace;37340967]i guess it makes me a bad person when i say i couldnt give 2 shits about these people[/QUOTE]
Well think of it this way, by killing brown people in this manner, they're in all likelihood giving Paki teenagers a good reason to bury some jury-rigged explosive ordinance and camp out for a week so they can dial it in when an abram tank drives over it. The stress from these guerilla aficionados is ultimately placed on you, the taxpayer. All these tanks, drones, and advanced military hardware we use is very expensive. These dronekillings result in us creating terrorists that we destroy, which is stupid and expensive and you are paying for it.
[QUOTE=InChoFace;37340967]i guess it makes me a bad person when i say i couldnt give 2 shits about these people[/QUOTE]
It also makes you an idiot.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37327540]I am. Or rather the only information I really have to go off of is news posted here, so I would say I'm miss-informed.
My general understanding is the majority of the people in the country don't want the US there and would rather they would just leave. I would suspect this sediment is greater in the more remote areas than in the more populated cities, but exists in both.
If this is wrong, as you're response seems to suggest it is, please correct me. I'm not trying to troll or whatever it would be considered, this is legitimately my understanding of the situation.[/QUOTE]
You're immensely retarded and I hope you and those close to you who probably support your stupid views will change one day.
[QUOTE=Falchion;37342970]You're immensely retarded and I hope you and those close to you who probably support your stupid views will change one day.[/QUOTE]
He already realized that his original viewpoint was flawed, reiterated by him 6 posts above yours.
[QUOTE=NYT]Getting a full picture of the drone campaign is difficult. It is classified as top secret, and Obama administration officials have refused to make public even the much-disputed legal opinions underpinning it. [/QUOTE]
The gov't is hiding a lot of this drone campaign stuff.
There is a lot we don't know, I think its time to make it more public.
[editline]21st August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=archangel125;37328051]Pakistan is a country in a very, very bad spot. Its government lacks the support of its people because it lacks the capacity to defend them against the Americans and the Taliban. The government has to bend over and allow itself to be bullied by the USA, because the USA needs just one legitimate excuse to conduct a full-scale invasion of Pakistan and overthrow its government. If the government refuses the USA, the US invades, and India, official ally of the USA and Arch-nemesis of Pakistan, will use that opportunity to invade from the south to 'assist' US troops, thereby settling their own scores. Pakistan would be utterly destroyed.[/QUOTE]
Also Pakistan has a very weak economy and is basically living off of US aid. If they refused to help the US, the US could just withdraw aid and the country would economically collapse.
[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;37343197]He already realized that his original viewpoint was flawed, reiterated by him 6 posts above yours.[/QUOTE]
Well where did he get that shit? I doubt he thought it all up alone.
AMERRRRICAAAAA FUCK no. :(
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
