I would not assume these things, even if they are possible. It's also "possible" that no one knew the target at the funeral was a terrorist.

I can see how assuming all of these things makes it easier for you to justify killing innocent people, though.

veal the reason i worded it that way is because none of us know the facts. we didnt see the sitrep. we were not there when it happened we can only guess.
were you in the command center when it happened?

do i wish there was 0 collateral damage? absolutely. do you think service members (not all i know) do what they can to try and avoid collateral damage? or do you think who cares if children die.

wookie if i may use an example of the funeral again. most of those funerals were in pakistan.
i would have much preferred that the pakistanis would have just gone after those guys if we told them where they were. it is obvious that they are unwilling to do anything about it.
therefore if we see a high value target not just some random guy. and this is the only chance we have then we might have to shoot.

and again we dont have all the info. with the ambulance again very regrettable but i dont know how far away the shot was taken from. they can drop a gravity bomb from over 36 miles away. i would say that it could have been a case of ambulance already responding but not in view and we took the shot with the ambulance arriving during the flight time.
i wasnt in the command center i didnt see the intel and neither did anybody else here so we dont know what truly happened.

Source

Here we have at least fifteen of these incidents within the span of a few years. That doesn't include all the other incidents that cause "collateral damage" which has included women and children. I don't know what you consider an "isolated incident" (much less why you think that matters wrt such an incident helping or hurting recruitment), but I certainly don't think it should. Why this matters, because I'm sure you probably think I'm trying to craftily get you to admit you are ok with these types of incidents or something, is that if these types of actions are making it easier to recruit faithful terrorists AND your goal is to "keep killin' 'em till they are all dead, then you are essentially advocating perpetual war, among other things. I hope you can see this is problematic for many reasons.

you said 15 and i have a total of 20ppl over multiple engagements i dont remember the time frame from my source.
now with thousands and thousands of air strikes i would consider 15 isolated incidents.

and i hope you dont lump all collateral damage under the umbrella of purposely targeting civilians. not all collateral damage comes just from americans. and guess what some collateral damage comes from the bad guys as well.

yeah, the storm is gone. Was quite an icebowl.

How about the group, in the name of christianity(which I think was already brought up), that's occupying muslim countries, trying to force their views? One problem is you're looking at stuff from a limited perspective. Terrorism seems to depend on which side you're on.

More at home, are there no christian groups trying to force people into an all christian state? If anything, the bombers may be more direct about it, but the sentiments are the same.

b

are any of you guys willing to admit that no matter what article you read online or in a paper that unless you were in the command center and saw the intel that you do not know with certainty what happened?

My pony might be slow here as I'm working down the thread.

Hit back in response to what, exactly? In response to them being on top of oil fields?

b

Seems I remember Clinton was getting impeached over a BJ at this time while the republicans called Clinton's comments about 'Ghanistan a smokescreen to try and cover up the Lewinsky scandal. Priorities, yknow...

b

bernie while i may be a slightly practicing christian. i do not want to live in a theocracy.
but i draw a huge line between trying to influence politics and proselytizing and bombing malls churches mosques and night clubs.
also please see my posts not differentiating between terrorists based on motives

all the night club bombings in the 70s and 80s. munich, lockerbie (well slightly, the best line ive ever heard from a president in my lifetime) all the embasy bombings. opec. how many you want me to talk about? khobar towers, world trade 1.

Does this even make sense? Since when has someone attacked the US directly and we didn't fight back?

b

The Shah wasn't especially well-loved, and there was a lot of American meddling. Here's a write up from the Most Hated Political Figures draft:

see the above

Isn't there some crazy guy running around in Africa with a bunch of child soldiers who claims to be a Christian?

Abortion clinics.

Not to mention all the bombings we've done in their country for what Bush called 'crusades.'

To a lesser extent: denying people equal access to healthcare, or denying certain healthcare at all(condoms in AIDS ridden countries).

Again, I guess it kinda depends on what side you're on.

b

ok wookie i was referring to his father. my apologies to you.
although the brits and soviets stuck him in there to be fair.

Is that the DRC deal? Or around that area? I can't remember if there was any theological claim on that issue.

b

Yeah, point conceded, but it's not much of a point for you. There was plenty of American meddling well prior to the time when terrorist attacks against America started happening, and you expressed concern about Muslim animosity towards any western country, not just America.

abortion clinics? are you talking about the bombing of abortion clinics? if you are than yes i agree you bomb an abortion clinic and kill somebody you deserve to die.

the health care i dont think directly corresponds to the bombing of planes and restaurants.

Denying people access to condoms in an AIDS ridden country where people have limited, if any health care at all, corresponds directly with people dying, does it not? This denial is in the name of theology. Somehow I think the number of people dead is more than those killed in a restaurant, but just not as compact or spectacular.

I'll repeat, terrorist acts depend on perspective. I'm sure many countries see the US as a terrorist country, using the same points you're using in terms of Muslim terrorists. Again, depends on what side you're on.

b

Note that "collateral damage" implies something that is unintended or accidental. Launching attacks against people who are treating the wounded, when it happens 15 times, isn't an accident. You're also, still, missing the greater point that telling the friends and family of the innocent people who were vaporized while they were trying to tend to the wounded (many of whom were likely innocent) or clear rubble that their relatives being blow to bits was just another unfortunate "collateral damage" incident in the War on Terror does nothing to mollify them.

I'm specifically referring to collateral damage resulting from drone strikes. However, I don't think you want to tally their collateral damage vs. ours. We could even throw in 911 and I'm pretty sure their tally would be way off ours.

Man, I cant remember. I'll try and do some googling later to see if I can remember.

Found it, it's the Lords Resistence Army.

They were mentioned in God is Not Great.

But, you know, most of us don't hear about THAT particular evil group when we go to church or turn on Fox News.