Senior Pakistan Taliban figure explains why they shot Malala

[Mr. Coffee]

One can recognize that he's got something of a point without condoning his actions or absolving him of any responsibility.

And that would require someone believe that accidentally killing someone is the same as intentionally killing them, and if a person can't tell the difference between the two then they're beyond helping and I'd be amazed if such people could count their balls and get the same number two-out-of-three. The jackass would have a point if the US was in the habit of murdering specific children for speaking out against its actions, but so far that's be a line we've been pretty goddamn good about not crossing.

[Ralin]

And that would require someone believe that accidentally killing someone is the same as intentionally killing them, and if a person can't tell the difference between the two then they're beyond helping and I'd be amazed if such people could count their balls and get the same number two-out-of-three. The jackass would have a point if the US was in the habit of murdering specific children for speaking out against its actions, but so far that's be a line we've been pretty goddamn good about not crossing.

And when it 'accidentally' happens because the people making the decision just don't give a fuck whether they kill a good chunk of their target's family along with him? There's some nuance here that you're glossing over and I don't know about you, but I'm past the point of thinking Obama and company are agonizing over collateral damage when they sign off on these strikes.

By this point they're well aware that innocent people are getting killed in non-neglible numbers by these strikes. Whether they set out to kill that specific child or not, they authorize them knowing that kids are getting Hellfired in the process and will likely continue to be. So calling it accidental falls a little flat to me.

[Mr. Coffee]

And when it 'accidentally' happens because the people making the decision just don't give a fuck whether they kill a good chunk of their target's family along with him?

It's still not the same as deliberately targeting a ten year old girl because she wanted to go to school and spoke up about it.

Seriously, how fucking hard is that to get?

There's some nuance here that you're glossing over and I don't know about you, but I'm past the point of thinking Obama and company are agonizing over collateral damage when they sign off on these strikes.

Then bitch about Obama, bitch about drone strikes, bitch about collateral damage all you like, but stop saying it's the same thing as bunch of primitive assholes trying to murder a ten year old girl for wanting to go to school because their magic sky pixie said it was ok to do so.

By this point they're well aware that innocent people are getting killed in non-neglible numbers by these strikes. Whether they set out to kill that specific child or not, they authorize them knowing that kids are getting Hellfired in the process and will likely continue to be. So calling it accidental falls a little flat to me.

Accidental, collateral, call it whatever the fuck you like, but unless you can show that the US is deliberately targeting children because they wanted to go to fucking school then shut the fuck up already. Seriously, how can I make this any clearer for you people? Here's, maybe a fucking haiku will do it...

Girl shot with intent
Collateral damages
The two are not same

If that didn't work you're fucked because only thing left is interpretive dance at this point and I'm a white guy.

[Crown]

And that would require someone believe that accidentally killing someone is the same as intentionally killing them, and if a person can't tell the difference between the two then they're beyond helping and I'd be amazed if such people could count their balls and get the same number two-out-of-three. The jackass would have a point if the US was in the habit of murdering specific children for speaking out against its actions, but so far that's be a line we've been pretty goddamn good about not crossing.

Oh come the fuck on, how fucking dense are you dickweed? The Pakistanis claim that 176 children have been killed as a result of US drone strikes, to which the US called ridiculous, and put the figure closer to 50 (ABC News).

It's no longer an 'accident' if you keep fucking doing it.

The US is in a habit of killing random children, just by where they happen to be. If you can't fathom the sheer moral revulsion in this, then I can't help you.

Then bitch about Obama, bitch about drone strikes, bitch about collateral damage all you like, but stop saying it's the same thing as bunch of primitive assholes trying to murder a ten year old girl for wanting to go to school because their magic sky pixie said it was ok to do so.

The original point went like this;
Terrorist: If you were killed by a drone would the world care?
Poster 1: He has a good point on that.
Poster 2: No he doesn't because those deaths are DIFFERENT RAR MORAL EQUIVALENCY RAR RAR
Me: No, it's valid. Innocent children are droned all the time and you never see their relatives giving a speech to the UN or indeed hear about it... at all ... and you won't ...

What about that was hard to follow?

[Mr. Coffee]

blahblahblah butthurt outrage blahblahblah didn't read the post right the fuck above his own post blahblah blah

Ralin beat you to the punch, high speed, but I guess in all your bitch indignation you neglected to read the post right above yours...

This next bit I'll actually respond to because it's so cute.

The original point went like this;
Terrorist: If you were killed by a drone would the world care?
Poster 1: He has a good point on that.
Poster 2: No he doesn't because those deaths are DIFFERENT RAR MORAL EQUIVALENCY RAR RAR
Me: No, it's valid. Innocent children are droned all the time and you never see their relatives giving a speech to the UN or indeed hear about it... at all ... and you won't ...

And now I see you're an illiterate fucking retard, otherwise you'd have seen where I posted the following addressing that exact bullshit on the last page

If incidents like what happened to that kid in Yemen is any indication the little girl would have received just as much, if not more attention because the US blew up her up accidentally, never mind the absolute shitstorm that would erupt if the US intentionally blew her up.

So the original point was "would the world care is she'd been killed in a drone attack". The very fact you're bitching about it indicates that yes, people would have cared and you know for a fact that had the US used a drone to attack a ten year old girl using the same bullshit reasoning that Taliban fucktard used that the uproar might actually beat out Krakatoa for the loudest noise in recorded history.

What about that was hard to follow?

Considering that you're such a dumb motherfucker that you failed to notice where I responded to your "point" before you even asked it I now know exactly the sort of mouth breather I was talking about when I said that stuff about people who'd improve the board (and probably the human race), if they got the fuck out.

[davidutlib]

The US is in a habit of killing random children, just by where they happen to be. If you can't fathom the sheer moral revulsion in this, then I can't help you.

Let me ask you a question, fuckwit. Between the United States and Al Qaeda, which one has a history of deliberately targeting civilians? Which one has a history of doing as much as possible to mitigate collateral damage? Here's a hint, shithead - it ISN'T the one who deliberately flies planes into buildings.

Hate America all you want. Hate the War on Terror all you want. The reality is that it's a tragedy when an innocent civilian is killed in a war -- which, by the way, happens far less often now than it did in prior wars, and happens far less often when the United States is involved than it happens when other nations are at war. For examples, see, e.g., Rwanda, Serbia, Somalia, etc. You are making a point with no basis in context, and it makes you look like a fucking idiot, and until you understand that the US isn't the bad guy here, I can't help you.

[Crown]

If incidents like what happened to that kid in Yemen is any indication the little girl would have received just as much, if not more attention because the US blew up her up accidentally, never mind the absolute shitstorm that would erupt if the US intentionally blew her up.

So the original point was "would the world care is she'd been killed in a drone attack". The very fact you're bitching about it indicates that yes, people would have cared and you know for a fact that had the US used a drone to attack a ten year old girl using the same bullshit reasoning that Taliban fucktard used that the uproar might actually beat out Krakatoa for the loudest noise in recorded history.

Which is demonstrably not true fuck face. Children have been killed by US drone attacks, and the world hasn't reacted in uproar.

[Metahive]

The only whom to which it matters whether children are intentionally or unintentionally killed are the people with the finger on the trigger. The people on the receiving end probably couldn't care less whether or not the killers gave a shit. Imagine you are a parent and your country's skies are saturated by killer drones from a foreign nation. If your child is killed by them, would it matter to you if they didn't mean to specifically meant to kill your child? The various people here who have argued to this effect I ask you, who are you trying to convince? What exactly are you trying to argue? That it is OK to kill children as long as you didn't mean it?

You are more similar to that Taliban apologist than you think. You and him both try to rationalize away the death of a child as being justified and nothing to really worry about. He because he thinks that speaking ill of radical Islam warrants death and you because you think your irrational paranoia of brown people warrants executing them summarily.

The reality is that it's a tragedy when an innocent civilian is killed in a war[...]

Just not one you could arsed to actually give a shit about. I daresay that if you had a dog and it died you'd consider it a more of a tragedy.

[...]which, by the way, happens far less often now than it did in prior wars, and happens far less often when the United States is involved than it happens when other nations are at war.

Again, to whom does this argument matter? Not at all to the people affected. They don't give a shit if you tell them that "Well, we could have killed more of you, but didn't." I bet YOU wouldn't accept it if the killer if your child threw this at you.

Why is it so hard for people to view this from the victim's perspective?

[PeZook]

"Oh it's okay to wage war (knowing civilians will die in it and all), since less civilians die in wars today than they used to!"

That is actually a seriously scary outlook on the world.

[Mr. Coffee]

Which is demonstrably not true fuck face. Children have been killed by US drone attacks, and the world hasn't reacted in uproar.

Really? You seem pretty goddamned outraged right now.

Also, nice to see you completely ignore what I said about the US having attacked a child based on the same reasoning that Taliban fuck gave. But I guess you must have trouble reading, what with the constant masturbation and all, you furry palmed bitch.

[davidutlib]

Metahive,

Just not one you could arsed to actually give a shit about. I daresay that if you had a dog and it died you'd consider it a more of a tragedy.

If your point is that we tend to care more about things that have a personal connection to us than things that don't, then I suppose you're right. I daresay that MOST PEOPLE would choose their dog over a random person in Fuckpooristan, if it came right down to it. Is that moral? I don't know, or care -- but it's probably true.

Again, to whom does this argument matter? Not at all to the people affected. They don't give a shit if you tell them that "Well, we could have killed more of you, but didn't." I bet YOU wouldn't accept it if the killer if your child threw this at you.

Why is it so hard for people to view this from the victim's perspective?

By your argument, the United States was morally wrong for dropping the atomic bomb. By your argument, the United States was wrong for invading Normandy. By your argument, the United States was wrong for bombing French railroads to disrupt Nazi troop movements and their economy.

NOBODY is saying that civilians should be targeted. Actually, that isn't true. AL QAEDA says civilians should be targeted. RADICAL ISLAM says civilians should be targeted. That's what they do -- target civilian, non-military targets. The United States does nothing of the sort, deliberately. Do civilians get killed? Certainly. Do civilians get killed in far fewer numbers today than in any prior US war? Yes. Do civilians get killed in far fewer numbers when they are part of a country at war with the US, as opposed to another nation? Yes.

You are hopelessly naive if you think that one can avoid killing civilians in war. I grant you that would be the ideal, but in the meantime, how about you join me on my unicorn? We'll ride it over a rainbow, steal a leprechaun's pot of gold, and go straight on til morning.

PeZook,

"Oh it's okay to wage war (knowing civilians will die in it and all), since less civilians die in wars today than they used to!"

That is actually a seriously scary outlook on the world.

Are you goddamned retarded? Perhaps you think the United States was attacking poor, innocent Muslims with no provocation. Perhaps you think that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, etc., are resistance fighters against TEH EVIL OPPRESSOR.

Please, let's focus -- between the United States, and the aforementioned parties (AQ, Taliban, Hamas), it is not the United States that deliberately targets civilians. Perhaps you think that it's perfectly OK for Hamas to suicide bomb a bus in Jerusalem, and yet it's absolutely unacceptable for the United States to target said suicide bomber and unfortunately risk collateral damage in a drone strike. The difference is in intent.

I personally think it's a tragedy when anyone is killed in war, soldier and civilian alike. Sometimes, mistakes occur. The current difference is, occasionally, the United States kills a civilian while targeting a known terrorist, while on the flip side, occasionally, an Islamic terrorist kills a soldier while intentionally targeting civilians.

[PeZook]

Are you goddamned retarded? Perhaps you think the United States was attacking poor, innocent Muslims with no provocation. Perhaps you think that Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, etc., are resistance fighters against TEH EVIL OPPRESSOR.

The point is to weigh harm prevented vs. harm done, which "Oh we kill less civilians than we used to!" does not address at all. So fucking what that you blow less people into bloody chunks than in Dresden? Is it supposed to make the people blown into bloody chunks feel any better? Does it make it okay to go to war willy-nilly because oh yeah we won't make a pile of corpses as high as we used to make?

Please, let's focus -- between the United States, and the aforementioned parties (AQ, Taliban, Hamas), it is not the United States that deliberately targets civilians. Perhaps you think that it's perfectly OK for Hamas to suicide bomb a bus in Jerusalem, and yet it's absolutely unacceptable for the United States to target said suicide bomber and unfortunately risk collateral damage in a drone strike. The difference is in intent.

No, really, intent doesn't matter at all. What matters is results, because that's the only way you can justify killing people, and saying "oh these kids are just collateral damage" has fuck all to do with whether the strike had a good enough reason or not. Tell me, if you kill twice as many people as collateral damage than the suicide bomber would've, is it okay to press the button? After all, the kids would not be deliberately targeted, right?

I personally think it's a tragedy when anyone is killed in war, soldier and civilian alike. Sometimes, mistakes occur. The current difference is, occasionally, the United States kills a civilian while targeting a known terrorist, while on the flip side, occasionally, an Islamic terrorist kills a soldier while intentionally targeting civilians.

The "known terrorist" part isn't even that clear. Have you forgotten how not that long ago, the CIA classified any male capable of bearing weapons as a combatant, as long as he got blown up with the actual target?

And that's not even considering how the entire thing might help recruitment efforts: if you blow up an innocent as collateral damage, and it helps Al-Quaeda recruit two new suicide bombers, then you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot a little.

[Thanas]

And even his last part is not true as the terrorists target both civilians and soldiers. If all they cared was blowing up civilians they would not bother with mortar attacks on bases or roadside bombs that are overkill for anything but military vehicles.

[Metahive]

My Little Droney : Intent is Magic

Except it is really, really not.

If your point is that we tend to care more about things that have a personal connection to us than things that don't, then I suppose you're right. I daresay that MOST PEOPLE would choose their dog over a random person in Fuckpooristan, if it came right down to it. Is that moral? I don't know, or care -- but it's probably true.

So you admit that calling it a tragedy was pure lip-service on your part and not meant seriously at all? Thank you. That's at least honest.

By your argument, the United States was morally wrong for dropping the atomic bomb. By your argument, the United States was wrong for invading Normandy. By your argument, the United States was wrong for bombing French railroads to disrupt Nazi troop movements and their economy.

Actually I think a lot of things the allies did in WW2 were of questionable morality. Alleged Wartime Neccessity =/= Morally Justified Action. Also Nazis Are Evil =/= Everyone Opposing Them a White Hat.

That's a kindergarten view on things.

NOBODY is saying that civilians should be targeted. Actually, that isn't true. AL QAEDA says civilians should be targeted. RADICAL ISLAM says civilians should be targeted. That's what they do -- target civilian, non-military targets. The United States does nothing of the sort, deliberately. Do civilians get killed? Certainly. Do civilians get killed in far fewer numbers today than in any prior US war? Yes. Do civilians get killed in far fewer numbers when they are part of a country at war with the US, as opposed to another nation? Yes.

They don't consider their victims to be civilians. For them everyone opposing them is the enemy that must be destroyed. So does the US. It would be funny to notice how close you actually are in thinking if it didn't result in dead people.

You are hopelessly naive if you think that one can avoid killing civilians in war. I grant you that would be the ideal, but in the meantime, how about you join me on my unicorn? We'll ride it over a rainbow, steal a leprechaun's pot of gold, and go straight on til morning.

How about this, since we are already at fever fantasies, why don't you offer definitive, objective, testable proof that dronestrikes are an utter necessity for the survival of the US? You are saying they're worth it to kill off innocent people over, so I want you to cough up something that justifies this tithe in blood.

Your arguments so far
Killing children is OK because
A: We could kill more but don't
B: We didn't mean to kill them specifically
C: Eggs and Omelets

In my last post I made a challenge, put yourself in the shoes of the bereaved and then listen to those arguments. Would they lead you to any sort of acceptance and understanding or would you rather punch they guy talking so glibly, superficially and callously about your loss in the face? I would definitely attempt the latter.

[davidutlib]

PeZook,

The point is to weigh harm prevented vs. harm done, which "Oh we kill less civilians than we used to!" does not address at all. So fucking what that you blow less people into bloody chunks than in Dresden? Is it supposed to make the people blown into bloody chunks feel any better? Does it make it okay to go to war willy-nilly because oh yeah we won't make a pile of corpses as high as we used to make?

No, really, intent doesn't matter at all. What matters is results, because that's the only way you can justify killing people, and saying "oh these kids are just collateral damage" has fuck all to do with whether the strike had a good enough reason or not. Tell me, if you kill twice as many people as collateral damage than the suicide bomber would've, is it okay to press the button? After all, the kids would not be deliberately targeted, right?

So, wait, help me understand. Are you arguing the unintentional civilian casualties are NOT an unfortunate and unavoidable part of war? Yes, from the point of view of the parents of the kid killed as a result of collateral damage, the US is completely evil. Then again, it's entirely possible that the parents of the kid killed by the US bombing Berlin would make the same point. I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law -- I'm just trying to bring up a war that no reasonable person can claim was an immoral war from the POV of the US. If you'd like to select another war, go ahead, and my point still holds.

BUT FOR the actions of Al Qaeda and their associated terrorist groups, the United States would not be forced to conduct military operations that, unfortunately and occasionally, kill civilians. The fact that civilians are killed is admitted and acknowledged by everyone, included the United States military - but the responsibility lies with the group that started the war in the first place.

The "known terrorist" part isn't even that clear. Have you forgotten how not that long ago, the CIA classified any male capable of bearing weapons as a combatant, as long as he got blown up with the actual target?

How about you source this for me.

While you're at it, explain to me how it substantially differs from what most countries do it most wars, if faced with a situation in which "innocent" civilians are directly associated with armed enemy combatants. You can't hold our military response hostage by embedding civilians next to combatants -- all that does is turn civilians INTO combatants.
]

And that's not even considering how the entire thing might help recruitment efforts: if you blow up an innocent as collateral damage, and it helps Al-Quaeda recruit two new suicide bombers, then you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot a little.

Well, let's go ahead and take that argument to it's logical conclusion, and claim that if we didn't blow up any innocent people at all, then nobody would become a suicide bomber.

Except, wait, that demonstrably isn't true.

Thanas,

And even his last part is not true as the terrorists target both civilians and soldiers. If all they cared was blowing up civilians they would not bother with mortar attacks on bases or roadside bombs that are overkill for anything but military vehicles.

OK, fine. If you want to go down this road, I will acknowledge that AQ and other terrorist groups INTENTIONALLY target military personnel if YOU will acknowledge that the same groups ALSO INTENTIONALLY target civilians. I don't recall ever saying that AQ didn't go after military targets -- I just said that unlike the US, they also intentionally go after purely civilian targets.

Metahive,

So you admit that calling it a tragedy was pure lip-service on your part and not meant seriously at all? Thank you. That's at least honest.

What? No. Assuming you have them, ask 5 dog owning friends if they would rather their dog die, or an Afghani civilian die. I rather imagine that at a minimum 4/5 of them would opt to save their dog. You're also constructing a gigantic strawman and then lighting it on fire -- I never said that the moral choice was to kill a civilian, I just said that many people would care more about their dog than a civilian 10,000 miles away. I also said that an unnecessary civilian death is tragic. The opinions OTHER PEOPLE might hold regarding the relative value of a family pet vs. an anonymous civilian is hardly relevant as to my opinion. I don't have a dog, and I don't know any Afghanis. If you choose not to believe that I think that an unnecessary death is a tragedy, then fuck you, but you can't logically arrive at that conclusion from what I said.

Actually I think a lot of things the allies did in WW2 were of questionable morality. Alleged Wartime Neccessity =/= Morally Justified Action. Also Nazis Are Evil =/= Everyone Opposing Them a White Hat.

Then pick another war. I don't care. I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law. I'm trying to help you understand that in war, innocent people die. That's part of the tragedy of war. You can't get around it. That's why intent is important. If we accept that civilians are going to die no matter what (and good luck proving the opposite position), then it becomes incredibly relevant as to which side is actively trying to avoid civilian death. In this particular example, it's the United States trying to avoid unnecessary civilian death, while it's AQ/Islamic extremists who DELIBERATELY TARGET civilians. Even if you choose to argue that the US has deliberately targeted civilians, you cannot argue that we have done so more than AQ/Muslims.

And no, I'm not trying to make a greater than/lesser than body count morality argument in the sense of whomever racks up less of a body count is the moral winner. I'm saying that civilians have always died in every war ever fought, that it's always been a tragedy, and that intent does GODDAMN WELL MATTER.

How about this, since we are already at fever fantasies, why don't you offer definitive, objective, testable proof that dronestrikes are an utter necessity for the survival of the US? You are saying they're worth it to kill off innocent people over, so I want you to cough up something that justifies this tithe in blood.

Oh, well, my goodness, you are certainly racheting up the rhetoric, given that I never, ever claimed that drone strikes are an utter necessity for the survival of the US. The US hasn't faced an existential crisis since the 1860s, moron, and "facing an existential threat" has NEVER been the standard for going to war. Is the War on Terror different than, say, WW2? Certainly. Is the existential threat to the United States approximately the same? Also, yes.

So climb down from your Ivory Tower and stop placing ridiculous goal posts way out of proportion to reason and reality.

In my last post I made a challenge, put yourself in the shoes of the bereaved and then listen to those arguments. Would they lead you to any sort of acceptance and understanding or would you rather punch they guy talking so glibly, superficially and callously about your loss in the face? I would definitely attempt the latter.

I have read that last quote about 27 times, in search of a point. All I can come up with is Appeal to Emotion. I'm glad you admit that you would prefer to react emotionally rather than rationally, but mainly, why don't you shut the fuck up and apply context to the situation?

[Metahive]

What? No. Assuming you have them, ask 5 dog owning friends if they would rather their dog die, or an Afghani civilian die. I rather imagine that at a minimum 4/5 of them would opt to save their dog. You're also constructing a gigantic strawman and then lighting it on fire -- I never said that the moral choice was to kill a civilian, I just said that many people would care more about their dog than a civilian 10,000 miles away. I also said that an unnecessary civilian death is tragic. The opinions OTHER PEOPLE might hold regarding the relative value of a family pet vs. an anonymous civilian is hardly relevant as to my opinion. I don't have a dog, and I don't know any Afghanis. If you choose not to believe that I think that an unnecessary death is a tragedy, then fuck you, but you can't logically arrive at that conclusion from what I said.

A tragedy is something that saddens and disturbs you. I see no evidence that the death of brown people two continents away is doing that to you so can stop handwaving it now. It's actually the opposite for you, you call for more civilians deaths and defend them even.

I'm trying to help you understand that in war, innocent people die.

A war has a clear enemy. A war has a clear goal. The "War" on Terror has neither. There is no war. Also, going for eggs and omeletts again? How disappointing.

You can't get around it. That's why intent is important.

Nope. Not at all. Murdering the wrong target is still murder.

If we accept that civilians are going to die no matter what (and good luck proving the opposite position), then it becomes incredibly relevant as to which side is actively trying to avoid civilian death. In this particular example, it's the United States trying to avoid unnecessary civilian death, while it's AQ/Islamic extremists who DELIBERATELY TARGET civilians. Even if you choose to argue that the US has deliberately targeted civilians, you cannot argue that we have done so more than AQ/Muslims.

They produce dead civilians on a regular basis, you produce dead civilians on a regular basis. Both sides claims it is necessary and both sides claim it can't be avoided.

Intent makes no difference. For the dead and their relatives and friends it's irrelevant if they are a victim of hostile intent or contemptuous indifference.

Since you admit frankly that you don't want to avoid civilians deaths (BECAUSE WAAAAAAAGH!) I also question if your intents are actually all that different. Would you plead the same if the collateral damage were your friends and neighbors? If the US killing any innocent foreigner meant random Americans dying in retaliatory attacks? It's easy to to be all "world-weary" and "cynical" when the only innocents affected by the "war" are those who live 6000 miles away.

I bet if it were an eye for an eye you would not cut the other side any slack like you demand here for the US just because "it's WAR!". You do not fool me.

Oh, well, my goodness, you are certainly racheting up the rhetoric, given that I never, ever claimed that drone strikes are an utter necessity for the survival of the US. The US hasn't faced an existential crisis since the 1860s, moron, and "facing an existential threat" has NEVER been the standard for going to war. Is the War on Terror different than, say, WW2? Certainly. Is the existential threat to the United States approximately the same? Also, yes.

So no, except yes? There has been no existential threat to the US since 1860 except the terrorists are an existential threat to the US?

Also, I'm not using "existential threat" as a measure to go to war, I'm using it as a measure to justify the slaughter of innocents. The war on terror is a phony war in my opinion (and that of everyone else who isn't drinking governmental kool-aid), so I couldn't care less. Wars are started for all sorts of BS reasons, so it's irrelevant either way.

Also, lack of evidence is noted.

I have read that last quote about 27 times, in search of a point. All I can come up with is Appeal to Emotion. I'm glad you admit that you would prefer to react emotionally rather than rationally, but mainly, why don't you shut the fuck up and apply context to the situation?

Lack of empathy is why the terrorists act in the way they do. Lack of empathy is what enabled and enables groups and nations to engage in slaughter and torture of innocents. Empathy of therefore of the utmost importance here since it literally decides between life and death.

That you can't see that tells me a lot about you. It means that whatever morality you espouse, it's at best tribalist myopia and at worst sociopathy and can therefore be safely discounted.

In short, if you lack empathy your moral judgement are worth dick.

[salm]

A tragedy is something that saddens and disturbs you. I see no evidence that the death of brown people two continents away is doing that to you so can stop handwaving it now. It's actually the opposite for you, you call for more civilians deaths and defend them even.

I think you´re going down the wrong lane here. It´s possible to be be emotionally affected stronger by A than by B while intellectually knowing that B is worse than A.

[Metahive]

It´s possible to be be emotionally affected stronger by A than by B while intellectually knowing that B is worse than A.

I doubt the latter when it comes to davidutlib and that's what I was expressing in the two sentences you quoted.

EDIT:
See also him ragging against empathy as a glib appeal to emotion. That's why I don't accept his usage of the word tragedy.

[Thanas]

BUT FOR the actions of Al Qaeda and their associated terrorist groups, the United States would not be forced to conduct military operations that, unfortunately and occasionally, kill civilians. The fact that civilians are killed is admitted and acknowledged by everyone, included the United States military - but the responsibility lies with the group that started the war in the first place.

There is nothing in the actions of AQ that makes them invulnerable to anything but drones. Nothing. Nations have dealt with far more dangerous islamic uprisings and terror attacks in the pasts just fine without droning other countries.

The responsibility also lies at least partly with the US. Nobody forced the US to invade Iraq and destabilize the entire region. Nobody forced the US to expand the war to a dozen countries. Nobody is forcing the US to commit signature strikes.

How about you source this for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo ... #Detainees

While you're at it, explain to me how it substantially differs from what most countries do it most wars, if faced with a situation in which "innocent" civilians are directly associated with armed enemy combatants. You can't hold our military response hostage by embedding civilians next to combatants -- all that does is turn civilians INTO combatants.

Using that logic German troops were actually justified in their atrocities on the balkans. You sure you want to argue that?

Well, let's go ahead and take that argument to it's logical conclusion, and claim that if we didn't blow up any innocent people at all, then nobody would become a suicide bomber.

Except, wait, that demonstrably isn't true.

That is a strawman.

OK, fine. If you want to go down this road, I will acknowledge that AQ and other terrorist groups INTENTIONALLY target military personnel if YOU will acknowledge that the same groups ALSO INTENTIONALLY target civilians. I don't recall ever saying that AQ didn't go after military targets -- I just said that unlike the US, they also intentionally go after purely civilian targets.

I am quite happy to acknowledge that. Are you also prepared to acknowledge that the US - either by mistake (more likely) or design (quite unlikely) commits strikes that kill purely civilians, or commits massacres for which nobody really is punished?

I'm trying to help you understand that in war, innocent people die.

And I am trying to help you understand that even though innocent people die in war, that this is not a valid argument for "well, there is nothing to be done here". Standards of care and all that.

[salm]

I doubt the latter when it comes to davidutlib and that's what I was expressing in the two sentences you quoted.

EDIT:
See also him ragging against empathy as a glib appeal to emotion. That's why I don't accept his usage of the word tragedy.

I find his point with the dog owners strange.
I think that most dog owners would be affected more by their dogs death than a random Afghans death.
But if they were in a situation in which the dog owner could chose almost everybody but the most psychopathic asshole would rather have their own dog killed than the random Afgan because their inellect would override their emotion.

[Akhlut]

Let me ask you a question, fuckwit. Between the United States and Al Qaeda, which one has a history of deliberately targeting civilians?

Is it the one that intentionally bombed Cambodia? Or the one that declared any village in certain areas of Vietnam to be entirely occupied by the Viet Cong, and that killing civilians at least deprived the enemy of population? Was it the one that intentionally set Native American villages on fire and offered bounties for human scalps? Was it the one that infected black men with syphilis and denied them lifesaving treatment for medical experiments that might be understatedly termed "unethical"? Was it the one that funded death squads in Central America? Was it the one that systematically disenfranchised black citizens for a century? Or the one that had de facto legal vigilante racial murders that the federal government overlooked? Was it the one that intentionally exposed its soldiers to nuclear explosions? Maybe the one that intentionally drone-bombed its own citizen?

Which one has a history of doing as much as possible to mitigate collateral damage? Here's a hint, shithead - it ISN'T the one who
deliberately flies planes into buildings.

Does mitigating collateral damage include funding death squads, arming Iran AND Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, or intentionally targeting villages full of noncombatants?

Hate America all you want. Hate the War on Terror all you want. The reality is that it's a tragedy when an innocent civilian is killed in a war -- which, by the way, happens far less often now than it did in prior wars, and happens far less often when the United States is involved than it happens when other nations are at war. For examples, see, e.g., Rwanda, Serbia, Somalia, etc. You are making a point with no basis in context, and it makes you look like a fucking idiot, and until you understand that the US isn't the bad guy here, I can't help you.

The Lancet estimates over half a million excess deaths in Iraq due to the US invasion. Which is waaaaaaay more than al-Qaida could do.

It also happens to be in the same ballpark as the Rwandan Genocide in terms of body count.

[PeZook]

So, wait, help me understand. Are you arguing the unintentional civilian casualties are NOT an unfortunate and unavoidable part of war? Yes, from the point of view of the parents of the kid killed as a result of collateral damage, the US is completely evil. Then again, it's entirely possible that the parents of the kid killed by the US bombing Berlin would make the same point. I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's Law -- I'm just trying to bring up a war that no reasonable person can claim was an immoral war from the POV of the US. If you'd like to select another war, go ahead, and my point still holds.

No, I am arguing that "we won't kill as many civilians as we used to" is not in any way shape or form a good argument to defend prosecuting a given war. It's all about results: WWII was a justified war because it prevented the Nazis from murdering 120 million people ; That was their clear goal, which was clearly prevented by stopping their war machine and denazifying Germany.

By deciding to go to war, you take responsibility for the dead civilians, because only an idiot thinks a war can be clean. Saying "we don't deliberately target them" is no excuse ; It's like saying an engineer is absolved of responsibility for a deadly bridge collapse he knew would happen because he didn't mean to kill those people.

You either have a good enough reason to justify the inevitable deaths or you don't. The size of the resulting pile of corpses is not by itself such a reason.

BUT FOR the actions of Al Qaeda and their associated terrorist groups, the United States would not be forced to conduct military operations that, unfortunately and occasionally, kill civilians. The fact that civilians are killed is admitted and acknowledged by everyone, included the United States military - but the responsibility lies with the group that started the war in the first place.

Really? You guys were forced to conduct military operations against Al-Quaeda? In their current form, that accomplishes jack and shit, pisses away America's political capital, antagonizes your allies, gives ammunition to radical Islamist factions amongst your nominal allies, helps recruitment and sets the stage for decades of further hate?

Tell me how you were forced to do that.

How about you source this for me.

Read and weep

Everyone who's killed along with the target = combatant unless we can prove otherwise!

While you're at it, explain to me how it substantially differs from what most countries do it most wars, if faced with a situation in which "innocent" civilians are directly associated with armed enemy combatants. You can't hold our military response hostage by embedding civilians next to combatants -- all that does is turn civilians INTO combatants.

By that standard, you are justified in murdering every civilian living in proximity to partisans, essentially justifying all atrocities ever comitted in the name of subduing guerillas. I mean as long as you don't intentionally target civilians, who are of course defined as anyone who doesn't happen to be in the way.

Well, let's go ahead and take that argument to it's logical conclusion, and claim that if we didn't blow up any innocent people at all, then nobody would become a suicide bomber.

Except, wait, that demonstrably isn't true.

That's not a logical conclusion of the argument, unless we're living in bizarro world. The argument was that drone strikes help recruit additional suicide bombers from the families of those killed along with the targets.

Oh, well, my goodness, you are certainly racheting up the rhetoric, given that I never, ever claimed that drone strikes are an utter necessity for the survival of the US. The US hasn't faced an existential crisis since the 1860s, moron, and "facing an existential threat" has NEVER been the standard for going to war. Is the War on Terror different than, say, WW2? Certainly. Is the existential threat to the United States approximately the same? Also, yes.

Oh my god

So, on one hand: a powerful, industrialized nation state with millions of men at arms, a huge fleet of submarines and an air force, with a clear goal and capability to murder hundreds of millions of people and conquer all your regional allies.

On another, a small extranational terrorist organization armed with small arms and explosives.

THREAT LEVEL: ABOUT THE SAME

[Thanas]

In the words of a German comedian: "It is like putting up Vladimir klitschko against a three-year old and telling Klitschko to beware, for the kid got a mighty left hook".

[Metahive]

In the "second book" Hitler talks about how the US are a dangerous nation run by villainous Jews that have to be dealt with eventually and a Europe unified under German control would have given him the tools to do just that. To compare Al-Quaeda to this is completely delusional.

It took the armies of several global superpowers to overwhelm Nazi Germany. The Red Army had to fight bloody battle after bloody battle to get to Hitler's hideout. Killing Bin Laden took an afternoon and a dozen men. Yeah, totally the same.

[Block]

It took the armies of several global superpowers to overwhelm Nazi Germany. The Red Army had to fight bloody battle after bloody battle to get to Hitler's hideout. Killing Bin Laden took an afternoon and a dozen men. Yeah, totally the same.

If you're going to accuse people of being delusional, you may want to get facts involved. Finding Bin Laden took an army of Intel assets a number of years and a lot more than a dozen men.