collateral damage - boston to afghanistan

JC29856

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 ... 33407.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013 ... ng/100495/

when man decides who lives and who dies

Last-12-Exit

I see what your saying here, maybe its the title I disagree with. The killing of the children during the air strike is collateral damage. The victims in Boston were the target. I guess I'm splitting hairs.

JimmyV

It is not splitting hairs at all. We do not target sporting events. Civilians are caught in the crossfire but we try to minimize those casualties, not maximize them. The attack yesterday was on innocent civilians, on families, on children. There is no pretext of a government or financial or military target. This was an attack on people.

JC29856

an innocent civilian is an innocent civilian no matter what, a dead child is a dead child. furthermore, i dont know who "we" target and i dont know who they were "targeting", so to me its collateral damage.
3 vs 3,000....to steal a line from Chuck Sheen.... WINNING!

next year the boston marathon will be much different with all the drones hovering

JimmyV

"A fierce battle between U.S.-backed Afghan forces and Taliban militants in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan left nearly 20 people dead, including 11 Afghan children killed in an airstrike and an American civilian adviser, officials said Sunday."

There was no "fierce battle" in Boston yesterday. There was no crossfire. There were bombs secretly planted and then detonated. The targets were runners, spectators and families. I feel for those 11 children but what happened yesterday was not the same thing.

Last-12-Exit

JC29856 wrote:

an innocent civilian is an innocent civilian no matter what, a dead child is a dead child. furthermore, i dont know who "we" target and i dont know who they were "targeting", so to me its collateral damage.
3 vs 3,000....to steal a line from Chuck Sheen.... WINNING!

next year the boston marathon will be much different with all the drones hovering

Innocent children caught in the cross fire is the exact definition on collateral damage. Yesterday's attack on innocent men, women, and children did exactly what the terrorist wanted. They WERE the target. Thats the difference.

Bronx Bombers

Pasha said the main Taliban suspect was in the house that was hit and was killed along with a woman and the children, ages 1 to 12, who were members of the suspect's family.

No idea what this has to do with the Boston attacks but I wont shed a tear for the loss of a terrorist and his family.

polaris_x

Bronx Bombers wrote:

Pasha said the main Taliban suspect was in the house that was hit and was killed along with a woman and the children, ages 1 to 12, who were members of the suspect's family.

No idea what this has to do with the Boston attacks but I wont shed a tear for the loss of a terrorist and his family.

what if this was a foreign terrorist attack and the target was a cia operative who was responsible for lives lost in afghanistan? ... how would you feel?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

There are some pretty bold assumptions that we already know who did this. Although I have my hunch as well... I'm inclined to wait until we know for sure.

Trust me when I say the act was brutal and displayed the lowest level of humanity that exists; however, playing Devil's advocate... if I was a man who had lost his family to another country's missile... I'd probably hate that country to an unsurpassed degree and wish for retaliation. I'd like to think I am not capable of such an atrocity... but I am not in an vengeful man's shoes. It's clear to say that some bastard(s) were very motivated yesterday.

Don't get me wrong here: I am not empathizing with the demons who did this or absolving them from their heinous act. I truly wish pain and suffering for those responsible.

When the picture becomes clear, it might be significant to review policy and question what politics might be motivating people to respond in such brutal fashion. That is... assuming politics and/or policy have anything to do with such an event.

Again... just horrible. I feel so badly for all affected in the slightest.

polaris_x

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

I truly wish pain and suffering for those responsible.

And so it continues to feed the beast ...

this is not meant to be a personal attack but simply one of the answers to the question why ... people want to know who or why people could do this ... when asking - remember this ... and remember the violence before this ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

Bronx Bombers wrote:

Pasha said the main Taliban suspect was in the house that was hit and was killed along with a woman and the children, ages 1 to 12, who were members of the suspect's family.

No idea what this has to do with the Boston attacks but I wont shed a tear for the loss of a terrorist and his family.

what if this was a foreign terrorist attack and the target was a cia operative who was responsible for lives lost in afghanistan? ... how would you feel?

But it's not.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

But it's not.

how do you know that? ... heck, how do you even know the people the US are killing in the middle east are terrorists!? ... just because the gov't says so? ... it's not like the US believes in trying people ...

brianlux

An extremely depressing thread.

JC29856

JimmyV wrote:

"A fierce battle between U.S.-backed Afghan forces and Taliban militants in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan left nearly 20 people dead, including 11 Afghan children killed in an airstrike and an American civilian adviser, officials said Sunday."

There was no "fierce battle" in Boston yesterday. There was no crossfire. There were bombs secretly planted and then detonated. The targets were runners, spectators and families. I feel for those 11 children but what happened yesterday was not the same thing.

"our" "war on terror" isn't against a nation or state, its against persons, there is no set battlefield, the battlefield is where ever our leader says/wants a battlefield.
"terrorist" "terrorism" is broadly and vaguely defined.
"their" war isnt against a nation or state its against people, they have no set battlefield, the battlefield is where they say/want the battlefield to be.

our leader says/wants the battlefield to be on the streets in afghanistan (where children play), they say/want the battlefield to be on the streets in Boston, Copley Sq (where there are spectators).

even flow - question mark

JimmyV wrote:

"A fierce battle between U.S.-backed Afghan forces and Taliban militants in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan left nearly 20 people dead, including 11 Afghan children killed in an airstrike and an American civilian adviser, officials said Sunday."

There was no "fierce battle" in Boston yesterday. There was no crossfire. There were bombs secretly planted and then detonated. The targets were runners, spectators and families. I feel for those 11 children but what happened yesterday was not the same thing.

Wow! Wow!

You don't think that when one of your precision missiles misses the mark and wipes out a wedding party that it isn't as bad or (here is something for your American brain to wrap around) even worse then yesterday. Hey were celebrating our wedding and doing it with customary ways and some punk in Nevada thinks something needs to be blown up and that is not as bad as yesterday.

Not one iota of a conspiracy has to go into that thought. Not one!

JimmyV

JC29856 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

"A fierce battle between U.S.-backed Afghan forces and Taliban militants in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan left nearly 20 people dead, including 11 Afghan children killed in an airstrike and an American civilian adviser, officials said Sunday."

There was no "fierce battle" in Boston yesterday. There was no crossfire. There were bombs secretly planted and then detonated. The targets were runners, spectators and families. I feel for those 11 children but what happened yesterday was not the same thing.

"our" "war on terror" isn't against a nation or state, its against persons, there is no set battlefield, the battlefield is where ever our leader says/wants a battlefield.
"terrorist" "terrorism" is broadly and vaguely defined.
"their" war isnt against a nation or state its against people, they have no set battlefield, the battlefield is where they say/want the battlefield to be.

our leader says/wants the battlefield to be on the streets in afghanistan (where children play), they say/want the battlefield to be on the streets in Boston, Copley Sq (where there are spectators).

Who are "they"? You have no more of an idea than I do who was responsible for yesterday's attack. Don't assume this was foreign terrorism. (It may have been, but we do not know.)

There was a battle in Afghanistan...children were killed...and that equals hiding explosives to blow up spectators at a road race? No, it does not.

All damage is not collateral damage. Those children (killed by Afghan forces, not American) were not the intended targets of anyone. They were caught up min the midst of an ongoing firefight between two sides. That is collateral damage, and it is tragic. But there was no such firefight going on in Copley Square yesterday. There was no military objective on the part of the attackers. 8 year old Martin Richard was not collateral damage. He was intended damage, targeted damage, deliberate damage.

The two events you linked to are not the same.

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

But it's not.

how do you know that? ... heck, how do you even know the people the US are killing in the middle east are terrorists!? ... just because the gov't says so? ... it's not like the US believes in trying people ...

I didn't say anything other than I don't believe for a second that the bombs that went off in Boston were to target a CIA agent. That's just silly.

JimmyV

even flow - question mark wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

"A fierce battle between U.S.-backed Afghan forces and Taliban militants in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan left nearly 20 people dead, including 11 Afghan children killed in an airstrike and an American civilian adviser, officials said Sunday."

There was no "fierce battle" in Boston yesterday. There was no crossfire. There were bombs secretly planted and then detonated. The targets were runners, spectators and families. I feel for those 11 children but what happened yesterday was not the same thing.

Wow! Wow!

You don't think that when one of your precision missiles misses the mark and wipes out a wedding party that it isn't as bad or (here is something for your American brain to wrap around) even worse then yesterday. Hey were celebrating our wedding and doing it with customary ways and some punk in Nevada thinks something needs to be blown up and that is not as bad as yesterday.

Not one iota of a conspiracy has to go into that thought. Not one!

Not one iota of conspiracy, but you did need to twist away from the topic at hand and put words into my mouth. This was not a cruise missile fired from nowhere. The article linked to in the OP described a pitched battle and innocents who were caught up in it, not a missile falling out of the sky from nowhere in the middle of the night.

This is the second time you have insulted me for being an American. It has been uncalled for both times.

dimitrispearljam

what we know is that yesterday attack was to kill people.,.

as every fukin war/attack...

cos we think,atleast our logic says that , war is when military of a country fight with other country military/..

some people have this terrorist attack as war..cos obviously cant fight a war the way we mean it,cos they will loose..

the problem is the war...

thats killing people..and this need to stop..who is innocent or to comapre,how many die from one side or the other is wrong..

every child is innocent for sure..

the worst for me at the moment is some try to take political advantage of this tragedy..as always..

for fuck shakes..not even 24 hours pass..

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

I didn't say anything other than I don't believe for a second that the bombs that went off in Boston were to target a CIA agent. That's just silly.

what makes it silly?? ... there's a difference between what you will believe and what you want to believe ... it's easy to want to believe that all deaths in the middle east are collateral damage but part of the greater good but anyone who dies here is just pure terror ...

there is a motive for this attack ... the only silly conclusion is that it was some random act and without purpose ... you only know what information is allowed to pass to you and even then - it is not a stretch to say much of it is massaged and not completely truthful ...

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I didn't say anything other than I don't believe for a second that the bombs that went off in Boston were to target a CIA agent. That's just silly.

what makes it silly?? ... there's a difference between what you will believe and what you want to believe ... it's easy to want to believe that all deaths in the middle east are collateral damage but part of the greater good but anyone who dies here is just pure terror ...

there is a motive for this attack ... the only silly conclusion is that it was some random act and without purpose ... you only know what information is allowed to pass to you and even then - it is not a stretch to say much of it is massaged and not completely truthful ...

Have you actually read what I wrote? I never mentioned anything about what the motive is other than it's silly to think that someone was targeting 1 individual. I never mentioned anything about collateral damage on either end.

There is a difference between what you believe I wrote and what I actually wrote. Bottom line is no one knows yet, but I would bet you whatever you want that this was not an attack to kill 1 CIA agent and everyone else is just collateral damage.

stickfig13

JC29856 wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/07/nato-air-strike-kills-children-nato-afghanistan_n_3033407.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013 ... ng/100495/

when man decides who lives and who dies

The United States of America CURRENTLY takes more precaution and risks more lives to ensure that collateral damage is minimized than any other nation in the history of the world. Prove me wrong

JimmyV

polaris_x wrote:

there's a difference between what you will believe and what you want to believe ... it's easy to want to believe that all deaths in the middle east are collateral damage but part of the greater good but anyone who dies here is just pure terror ...

Who believes this? I have seen no one say this.

polaris_x

JimmyV wrote:

Who believes this? I have seen no one say this.

i think if you read a few posts in this thread you will see how there is no sympathy for the collateral damage of a military air strike ...

Last-12-Exit

polaris_x wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Who believes this? I have seen no one say this.

i think if you read a few posts in this thread you will see how there is no sympathy for the collateral damage of a military air strike ...

I think there is sympathy for true collateral damage (like in the first link the OP provided). Personally, I didn't like the comparison to collateral damage of air strikes overseas with the intended targets of the terrorist(s) attacks in Boston. There is a difference.

polaris_x

cincybearcat wrote:

Have you actually read what I wrote? I never mentioned anything about what the motive is other than it's silly to think that someone was targeting 1 individual. I never mentioned anything about collateral damage on either end.

There is a difference between what you believe I wrote and what I actually wrote. Bottom line is no one knows yet, but I would bet you whatever you want that this was not an attack to kill 1 CIA agent and everyone else is just collateral damage.

again ... based on what? ... if the US is willing to kill everyone around to get at one militant - why wouldn't someone else?

obviously - i'm not saying this is actually the case ... it's simply a plausible scenario ... i'm not sure how you can discount it ...

polaris_x

Last-12-Exit wrote:

I think there is sympathy for true collateral damage (like in the first link the OP provided). Personally, I didn't like the comparison to collateral damage of air strikes overseas with the intended targets of the terrorist(s) attacks in Boston. There is a difference.

sorry - i'm not too sure what you are saying ... difference between what?

cincybearcat

polaris_x wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Have you actually read what I wrote? I never mentioned anything about what the motive is other than it's silly to think that someone was targeting 1 individual. I never mentioned anything about collateral damage on either end.

There is a difference between what you believe I wrote and what I actually wrote. Bottom line is no one knows yet, but I would bet you whatever you want that this was not an attack to kill 1 CIA agent and everyone else is just collateral damage.

again ... based on what? ... if the US is willing to kill everyone around to get at one militant - why wouldn't someone else?

obviously - i'm not saying this is actually the case ... it's simply a plausible scenario ... i'm not sure how you can discount it ...

I guess you don't wanna bet on it.

I'm no genius but it doesn't take a lot to think that 2 crude bombs in 2 different locations in a crowded place that go off at almost the same time are not meant for only 1 person.

Abuskedti

we say we don't "target" civilians and children. But I will never forget the braggin about the nightly bombing of Iraq shown on television like a fire works display. Bagdad was a major city swarming with children... Its sad that it matters that you can see a benefit making it ok.

Abuskedti

Abuskedti wrote:

we say we don't "target" civilians and children. But I will never forget the braggin about the nightly bombing of Iraq shown on television like a fire works display. Bagdad was a major city swarming with children... Its sad that it matters that you can see a benefit making it ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NktsxucDvNI

JimmyV

polaris_x wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Who believes this? I have seen no one say this.

i think if you read a few posts in this thread you will see how there is no sympathy for the collateral damage of a military air strike ...

I see one post that could possibly be interpreted that way. Not from anyone who has engaged you in a dialogue about it. You are projecting.