collateral damage - boston to afghanistan

245

Comments

  • stickfig13
    stickfig13 Posts: 1,532
    edited April 2013
    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
    Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,619
    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.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    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
    Last-12-Exit Charleston, SC Posts: 8,661
    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
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    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
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    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
    cincybearcat Posts: 16,975
    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.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Abuskedti
    Abuskedti Posts: 1,917
    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 Posts: 1,917
    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
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,619
    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.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Idris
    Idris Posts: 2,317
    stickfig13 wrote:

    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

    Yet they still have killed more innocent people than any other nation in the history of the world, prove me wrong...
    -

    Really, 'One' innocent person being killed is too much.
  • stickfig13
    stickfig13 Posts: 1,532
    Idris wrote:
    stickfig13 wrote:

    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

    Yet they still have killed more innocent people than any other nation in the history of the world, prove me wrong...
    -

    Really, 'One' innocent person being killed is too much.


    Can't argue with that. My point was that the United States makes every effort to prevent collateral damage. More than any country has throughout the history of warfare. Does it still happen? You bet. It's a fact of war. Innocent people die.
    Sacramento 10-30-00, Bridge School 10-20 and 10-21-01, Bridge School 10-25 and 10-26-01, Irvine 06-02-03, Irvine 06-03-03, San Diego 06-05-03, San Diego 07-07-06, Los Angeles 07-09-06, Santa Barbara 07-13-06, London UK 06-18-07, San Diego 10-9-09, San Diego 2013, LA 1 2013
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    someone else with half a brain sees the similarities too...

    http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1682
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    JC29856 wrote:
    someone else with half a brain sees the similarities too...

    http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1682

    exactly ...

    not to dismiss the tragedy that occurred the other day ... but perspective is almost always in order ... significantly more people died in iran on the same day due to an earthquake and the fear and horror that was felt the other day is felt daily by people living under american drones and air strikes ... think back to the sadness, the anger and the fury and wonder how people who live in afghanistan, pakistan and iraq feel every day ...

    saying americans take more care to save innocent lives in their wars is akin to saying rapists only enter through unlocked doors ...
  • even flow - question mark
    even flow - question mark Posts: 1,568
    stickfig13 wrote:
    Idris wrote:
    stickfig13 wrote:

    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

    Yet they still have killed more innocent people than any other nation in the history of the world, prove me wrong...
    -

    Really, 'One' innocent person being killed is too much.


    Can't argue with that. My point was that the United States makes every effort to prevent collateral damage. More than any country has throughout the history of warfare. Does it still happen? You bet. It's a fact of war. Innocent people die.


    When you drop as many bombs as the states. Wage as many wars as the states. Kill as many innocent people as the states. You have to look for a positive for all the killing you do all over the world. Let me guess that Israel is second in preventitive collateral damage? Just a wild guess!

    The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08

  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    cincybearcat wrote:
    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.

    bet on it!? ... honestly - let's just say hypothetically it was a hit on a US target ... do you honestly think they would tell us? ...

    just like you honestly think they are gonna tell us who or why they are killing people overseas? ... all you hear is second in command or militant ... based on what? ... there is no proof ever ... for a country that supposedly believes in justice - it's sure afraid of giving anyone a fair trial ...

    but like i said - it's not that necessarily believe this is the case ... it's just that there has to be a motive and this is not "silly" as you believe ... it's definitely plausible ...
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    JimmyV wrote:
    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.

    dude ... if americans cared about collateral damage - would it not behoove the public to denounce the significant amount of casualties currently stockpiling? ... america went into 2 wars ... do you know how many innocent people died? ... based on lies? ... many of them children ... heck, forget about the war ... do you know how many children died due to the sanctions imposed by the US on iraq prior through lack of medicine? ... or those suffering from the affects of depleted uranium? ...
  • dimitrispearljam
    dimitrispearljam Posts: 139,726
    polaris_x wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    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.

    dude ... if americans cared about collateral damage - would it not behoove the public to denounce the significant amount of casualties currently stockpiling? ... america went into 2 wars ... do you know how many innocent people died? ... based on lies? ... many of them children ... heck, forget about the war ... do you know how many children died due to the sanctions imposed by the US on iraq prior through lack of medicine? ... or those suffering from the affects of depleted uranium? ...
    from the moment you drop a bomb,you going to war, "innocent people" will die

    even the ones wear a uniform and are in the army..

    so,if im at airforce at Canada and Germany start a war with Canada and drop a bomb and i got killed,im at "innocent people"too..just cos i serve myt country ,doesnt mean i deserve to die more or less than a guy has a grosery store in my country..

    the problem is why the war started..



    its a fuckin endless circle
    "...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
    "..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
    “..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
  • polaris_x
    polaris_x Posts: 13,559
    dimitrispearljam wrote:
    from the moment you drop a bomb,you going to war, "innocent people" will die

    even the ones wear a uniform and are in the army..

    so,if im at airforce at Canada and Germany start a war with Canada and drop a bomb and i got killed,im at "innocent people"too..just cos i serve myt country ,doesnt mean i deserve to die more or less than a guy has a grosery store in my country..

    the problem is why the war started..



    its a fuckin endless circle

    well ... that's been debated before ... especially if one enlists in the army ... but i'm gonna pass on that one - i think i have probably irked enough with my other points ...
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,619
    polaris_x wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    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.

    dude ... if americans cared about collateral damage - would it not behoove the public to denounce the significant amount of casualties currently stockpiling? ... america went into 2 wars ... do you know how many innocent people died? ... based on lies? ... many of them children ... heck, forget about the war ... do you know how many children died due to the sanctions imposed by the US on iraq prior through lack of medicine? ... or those suffering from the affects of depleted uranium? ...

    So is it about "Americans" or is it about people in this thread? Because you said there were posts here indicating that people do not care about collateral damage and that really is not the case.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."

Categories