Boston Marathon - explosion

dimitrispearljam

redrock wrote:

Bronx Bombers wrote:

.... collateral damages of the people....

Wow... collateral damage... women and children and just other human beings that happened to be in the area. Dispensable. How sad to think that way.

But then again, maybe that's exactly what the bombers were thinking of the people that just happened to be in the vicinity of their bombs in Boston. Collateral damage. Doesn't sound 'acceptable' this way, does it?

ofcourse is not Rita
i said it alot of times here..WAR is the fuckin problem and not who get killed,how many and from which side..
we always talking about the tree and we loose the fuckin forest..

JimmyV

The American military is easy to hate, especially from afar, but it does factor how few innocents are killed and wounded into how successful a mission is. It is tragic and heartbreaking whenever an innocent is killed.

The Tsarnaev Brothers and every other piece of shit terrorist in this world judges success by how many innocents are killed. The innocents are their targets...in this case families who were watching a road race. There is no collateral damage, only the damage they were hoping to cause.

The victims of the Marathon attack were not killed and wounded inadvertently or accidentally. They were deliberately targeted. That is not collateral damage.

vant0037

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I need to take a step back here. I have been in poor form.

I'm going to agree with you regarding violence against an untried defendent is a very dangerous form of mob mentality. I did twist the argument and spin it to something else. I apologize for that.

No worries Thirty!

dimitrispearljam

JimmyV wrote:

The victims of the Marathon attack were not killed and wounded inadvertently or accidentally. They were deliberately targeted. That is not collateral damage.

yep..cos the goal is to hit your way of life and make you feel fear..cos for sure cant fight your army..
so they go to the easy target,civilians..so sad the whole..

redrock

Sorry JimmyV but innocents are deliberately targeted as well with these drone attacks or any other sort of attack coldly bombing a home, a neighbourhood, a wedding, etc. wanting to get one person, knowing damn well there will be many others there. These innocents are factored in the 'risk assessment' and killing or maiming deemed acceptable to achieve their goal. If it's more than expected, we get the 'oops' response or the 'it had to be done' response. That is simply evil.

I don't hate the American military and I am not 'from afar' either. I know the American military very well. I do have an issue with those (whoever they may be) finding 'collateral damage' perfectly acceptable.

A terrorist (homegrown like McVeigh or foreign) may very well consider the innocents they kill with their bombs as collateral damage. Collateral damage necessary to further their cause. Necessary to achieve their goal.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

JimmyV wrote:

The American military is easy to hate, especially from afar, but it does factor how few innocents are killed and wounded into how successful a mission is. It is tragic and heartbreaking whenever an innocent is killed.

The Tsarnaev Brothers and every other piece of shit terrorist in this world judges success by how many innocents are killed. The innocents are their targets...in this case families who were watching a road race. There is no collateral damage, only the damage they were hoping to cause.

The victims of the Marathon attack were not killed and wounded inadvertently or accidentally. They were deliberately targeted. That is not collateral damage.

to me, intent doesn't matter.

JimmyV

redrock wrote:

Sorry JimmyV but innocents are deliberately targeted as well with these drone attacks or any other sort of attack coldly bombing a home, a neighbourhood, a wedding, etc. wanting to get one person, knowing damn well there will be many others there. These innocents are factored in the 'risk assessment' and killing or maiming deemed acceptable to achieve their goal. If it's more than expected, we get the 'oops' response or the 'it had to be done' response. That is simply evil.

I don't hate the American military and I am not 'from afar' either. I know the American military very well. I do have an issue with those (whoever they may be) finding 'collateral damage' perfectly acceptable.

A terrorist (homegrown like McVeigh or foreign) may very well consider the innocents they kill with their bombs as collateral damage. Collateral damage necessary to further their cause. Necessary to achieve their goal.

I am not saying that any of that is perfectly acceptable, I am saying it is not the same as what happened in Boston. You mention McVeigh and that goes to my point. He attacked the Federal building in OKC, not a sporting event. I am sure you are correct in what his assessment of collateral damage would have been, but he had another target that he was after. In each of the drone strikes there is a particular target they are after. There was no other target in Boston. There was no government building, there was no military target. There was ONLY the spectators watching the race. That is not collateral damage.

JimmyV

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

The American military is easy to hate, especially from afar, but it does factor how few innocents are killed and wounded into how successful a mission is. It is tragic and heartbreaking whenever an innocent is killed.

The Tsarnaev Brothers and every other piece of shit terrorist in this world judges success by how many innocents are killed. The innocents are their targets...in this case families who were watching a road race. There is no collateral damage, only the damage they were hoping to cause.

The victims of the Marathon attack were not killed and wounded inadvertently or accidentally. They were deliberately targeted. That is not collateral damage.

to me, intent doesn't matter.

So we disagree.

JimmyV

vant0037 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I need to take a step back here. I have been in poor form.

I'm going to agree with you regarding violence against an untried defendent is a very dangerous form of mob mentality. I did twist the argument and spin it to something else. I apologize for that.

No worries Thirty!

There may have been poor form earlier but you are both in fine form this morning. Well played.

rearviewross

JimmyV wrote:

redrock wrote:

Sorry JimmyV but innocents are deliberately targeted as well with these drone attacks or any other sort of attack coldly bombing a home, a neighbourhood, a wedding, etc. wanting to get one person, knowing damn well there will be many others there. These innocents are factored in the 'risk assessment' and killing or maiming deemed acceptable to achieve their goal. If it's more than expected, we get the 'oops' response or the 'it had to be done' response. That is simply evil.

I don't hate the American military and I am not 'from afar' either. I know the American military very well. I do have an issue with those (whoever they may be) finding 'collateral damage' perfectly acceptable.

A terrorist (homegrown like McVeigh or foreign) may very well consider the innocents they kill with their bombs as collateral damage. Collateral damage necessary to further their cause. Necessary to achieve their goal.

I am not saying that any of that is perfectly acceptable, I am saying it is not the same as what happened in Boston. You mention McVeigh and that goes to my point. He attacked the Federal building in OKC, not a sporting event. I am sure you are correct in what his assessment of collateral damage would have been, but he had another target that he was after. There was no other target in Boston. There was no government building, there was no military target. There was ONLY the spectators watching the race. That is not collateral damage.

I agree that the intent is different. Does that really matter to the victims and their loved ones though. So say you live in Afghanistan and the US blows up your neighbors house and kills your child too(collateral damage). Do you think those people care that it was an accident? We used a 2000 lb bomb to blow up a mud hut because someone bad might be there. Sorry about your kid. You have no right to be mad at us or seek retribution because it was just collateral damage. Hmm, what would be good retribution for a person who believes their innocent civilian loved one was killed by Americans?

Bronx Bombers

redrock wrote:

Sorry JimmyV but innocents are deliberately targeted as well with these drone attacks or any other sort of attack coldly bombing a home, a neighbourhood, a wedding, etc. wanting to get one person, knowing damn well there will be many others there.

Why are all these "innocent" people in the same area with these terrorists to begin with?

In most cases they're either family members of the terrorist or are being sheltered by people who sympathize with their cause. These people are usually compensated for providing shelter to them. The terrorist or the sympathizers are the ones who choose to put their families in harms way and with that choice comes consequences.

What is your suggestion on how to capture or kill a terrorist embedded in a house in a remote village where sending in ground troops is not a option due to the location?

JimmyV

rearviewross wrote:

I agree that the intent is different. Does that really matter to the victims and their loved ones though. So say you live in Afghanistan and the US blows up your neighbors house and kills your child too(collateral damage). Do you think those people care that it was an accident? We used a 2000 lb bomb to blow up a mud hut because someone bad might be there. Sorry about your kid. You have no right to be mad at us or seek retribution because it was just collateral damage. Hmm, what would be good retribution for a person who believes their innocent civilian loved one was killed by Americans?

They don't and I don't expect them to, but that wasn't my point. I am not justifying using drones or dropping bombs. What I am saying is that for damage to be collateral there has to have been some other target in mind. The Tsarnaev Brothers were after no target other than those spectators. That is not collateral damage.

rearviewross

JimmyV wrote:

rearviewross wrote:

I agree that the intent is different. Does that really matter to the victims and their loved ones though. So say you live in Afghanistan and the US blows up your neighbors house and kills your child too(collateral damage). Do you think those people care that it was an accident? We used a 2000 lb bomb to blow up a mud hut because someone bad might be there. Sorry about your kid. You have no right to be mad at us or seek retribution because it was just collateral damage. Hmm, what would be good retribution for a person who believes their innocent civilian loved one was killed by Americans?

They don't and I don't expect them to, but that wasn't my point. I am not justifying using drones or dropping bombs. What I am saying is that for damage to be collateral there has to have been some other target in mind. The Tsarnaev Brothers were after no target other than those spectators. That is not collateral damage.

I agree. I was just extending the argument.

rearviewross

Bronx Bombers wrote:

redrock wrote:

Sorry JimmyV but innocents are deliberately targeted as well with these drone attacks or any other sort of attack coldly bombing a home, a neighbourhood, a wedding, etc. wanting to get one person, knowing damn well there will be many others there.

Why are all these "innocent" people in the same area with these terrorists to begin with?

In most cases they're either family members of the terrorist or are being sheltered by people who sympathize with their cause. These people are usually compensated for providing shelter to them. The terrorist or the sympathizers are the ones who choose to put their families in harms way and with that choice comes consequences.

What is your suggestion on how to capture or kill a terrorist embedded in a house in a remote village where sending in ground troops is not a option due to the location?

It sounds to me like you have a predetermined idea of who these people are. That is a dangerous. I think it is important to not have such a black and white perspective on this.

There is no location that we can hit with a missile that we cant send troops into including so called ally countries. There are times when drone strikes are called for but we seem to be using them as a convenience at the expense of others. Every time we blow up people that happen to be near the target we create more hatred and more enemies of the United States. The results are more attacks on US targets, more support for attacks on US targets. Its like you kill one enemy and create 5.

redrock

rearviewross wrote:

Every time we blow up people that happen to be near the target we create more hatred and more enemies of the United States. The results are more attacks on US targets, more support for attacks on US targets. Its like you kill one enemy and create 5.

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.

even flow - question mark

JimmyV wrote:

The American military is easy to hate, especially from afar, but it does factor how few innocents are killed and wounded into how successful a mission is. It is tragic and heartbreaking whenever an innocent is killed.

The Tsarnaev Brothers and every other piece of shit terrorist in this world judges success by how many innocents are killed. The innocents are their targets...in this case families who were watching a road race. There is no collateral damage, only the damage they were hoping to cause.

The victims of the Marathon attack were not killed and wounded inadvertently or accidentally. They were deliberately targeted. That is not collateral damage.

I'll comment on being as far as your north border!!!

Maybe those brothers thought that your president was in the "near vicinity" and just happened to get the wrong people. In your world, I'll just shrug my shoulders, "oops we missed" get on with life.

JimmyV

even flow - question mark wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

The American military is easy to hate, especially from afar, but it does factor how few innocents are killed and wounded into how successful a mission is. It is tragic and heartbreaking whenever an innocent is killed.

The Tsarnaev Brothers and every other piece of shit terrorist in this world judges success by how many innocents are killed. The innocents are their targets...in this case families who were watching a road race. There is no collateral damage, only the damage they were hoping to cause.

The victims of the Marathon attack were not killed and wounded inadvertently or accidentally. They were deliberately targeted. That is not collateral damage.

I'll comment on being as far as your north border!!!

Maybe those brothers thought that your president was in the "near vicinity" and just happened to get the wrong people. In your world, I'll just shrug my shoulders, "oops we missed" get on with life.

Yeah, maybe that's what they thought. :roll:

even flow - question mark

JimmyV wrote:

even flow - question mark wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

The American military is easy to hate, especially from afar, but it does factor how few innocents are killed and wounded into how successful a mission is. It is tragic and heartbreaking whenever an innocent is killed.

The Tsarnaev Brothers and every other piece of shit terrorist in this world judges success by how many innocents are killed. The innocents are their targets...in this case families who were watching a road race. There is no collateral damage, only the damage they were hoping to cause.

The victims of the Marathon attack were not killed and wounded inadvertently or accidentally. They were deliberately targeted. That is not collateral damage.

I'll comment on being as far as your north border!!!

Maybe those brothers thought that your president was in the "near vicinity" and just happened to get the wrong people. In your world, I'll just shrug my shoulders, "oops we missed" get on with life.

Yeah, maybe that's what they thought. :roll:

Just as good as blindly going along with what your government tells you is right and wrong. I hope that nobody on this boards wedding happens to go awry, but if it does, please quote the above so i can have a smug smile on my face. Thanking you in advance.

JimmyV

even flow - question mark wrote:

Just as good as blindly going along with what your government tells you is right and wrong. I hope that nobody on this boards wedding happens to go awry, but if it does, please quote the above so i can have a smug smile on my face. Thanking you in advance.

What? You would have a smug smile on your face if someone on this board was killed by a drone strike?!?!

You may want to rethink what you just typed.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

JimmyV wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

The American military is easy to hate, especially from afar, but it does factor how few innocents are killed and wounded into how successful a mission is. It is tragic and heartbreaking whenever an innocent is killed.

The Tsarnaev Brothers and every other piece of shit terrorist in this world judges success by how many innocents are killed. The innocents are their targets...in this case families who were watching a road race. There is no collateral damage, only the damage they were hoping to cause.

The victims of the Marathon attack were not killed and wounded inadvertently or accidentally. They were deliberately targeted. That is not collateral damage.

to me, intent doesn't matter.

So we disagree.

I'm sure the hundreds of thousands of "collateral damaged" in Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't.