« First « Previous Comments 65 - 76 of 76 Search these comments
This is the difference.
Civilian casualties during wars fought by the US are always accidental. ( unless you have an example otherwise )
Civilian casualties during wars fought by isis are almost always intentional.
Right on.
I criticized the destruction of the MSF hospital. Word is that the Boeing "Human Terrain System" is about as Reliable as WindowsMe, and was on the fritz. Then some dumbass MBA Officer decided to go ahead without out, or without paper/older system backup.
But the US does not deliberately target civilians in the Middle East. Muslims do.
In fact, Muslim Extremist brutality isn't "Asymmetric" warfare. When Al Nusra shoots a woman in the head after a Religious Court found her guilty of Adultery, that has nothing to do with the West. It's Islamist domestic policy.
No, we are talking about how wars are waged and what is intentionally targeted...
I disagree, can you tell the difference between a dead body caused by a terrorist or a dead body caused by collateral damage? Does it matter?
Not to the dead person. But it does to the living...
can you tell the difference between a dead body caused by a terrorist or a dead body caused by collateral damage? Does it matter?
the US has lousy foreign policy as a rule, but does not go off to deliberately murder as many unarmed civilians as possible.
No, it's call collateral damage. How many civilians have died in Irak and how many in New York? Of course, the life of an American civilian is proportional to its GDP per-capita multiplied by X
they are not ordered to make war against non-jews. show me the daily news reports of jews murdering random unarmed civilians and i'll start to worry.
Granted, a Jew will punish you only if you break their law, mainly societal order related. Check out this great movie
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3062880
But at least they keep it for themselves. A Muslim will punish you if you blasphemy/are unbeliever, depending on how radical is the Muslim. But I think you have hanging out with the wrong type of Muslim. I don't want to remove from US all the Muslim on the name of those that do jihad, nor all the gays on the name of those who try to take out my pants when I'm drunk. Can't you think on a better way of assessing people's personality/intentions other than by religion or sexual orientation? I'm sure this is a big business opportunity.
What about the clerics who continue to preach hate and violence in the name of Allah
This compares to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/AyenRCJ_4Ww
Your statement about not swallowing their culture – not even a hint of wanting to assimilate unless it is on your terms. In other words I will use their laws and whatever else is of value to me to get my way and demand things be the way or as close as possible to what I am comfortable with and the hell with the rest of it – unless we can get them to capitulate to our way of thinking and adapt our laws which is the long term goal.
The Identitarian Left can't comprehend that no bombing or Drone Strike campaign is perfectly free of Collateral Damage.
They can't grasp that people who flee a war zone where the violence is being contributed to by the West, may not feel "Thankful".
They can't grasp that many people who claim to be refugees aren't, and even if they are, may sympathize with the Jihadi groups against Assad AND the West.
@thunderlips11
How do you know? Do you happen to be Syrian to say that "they sympathize"? Give me a break. You have no idea.
How do you know? Do you happen to be Syrian to say that "they sympathize"? Give me a break. You have no idea.
I don't?
13% of Syrian refugees have a positive view of ISIS. Only the usual whingers had a more positive view of ISIS. And that doesn't include their opinion about other, slightly less extremist Wahabi/Salafi groups, like Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, several "FSA" sub groups etc.
Another 10% had a "Mixed View". That's 23% who are positive to mixed about ISIL, or about 1 in 4.
Source: Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, Doha.
http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e
Civilian casualties during wars fought by the US are always accidental.
We know that when we engage in war that civilians will be killed. We invaded Iraq under false pretenses knowing that civilians would be killed. They were somewhat randomly killed, and I suppose you could argue that missiles fired at a distance or bombs dropped from high altitude are somehow more civilized, except the folks firing the missiles and dropping the bombs know that they would be killing civilians. They hopefully wish that weren't the case, but civilians were killed nonetheless. Now if you kill civilians for a lie, and your own troops as well, are you somehow more noble than a whack job shooter who has his/her own religious rationale?
« First « Previous Comments 65 - 76 of 76 Search these comments
ah, i am getting at least some semi-automated pushback from my email to the white house opposing the large-scale importation of muslims. this means they are most likely actually counting pro vs con emails:
here is my reply:
please send your own objections, here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact