U.S. again bombs mourners

JihadJane · 28th July 2012, 03:24 AM

What kind of country targets rescuers, funeral attendees, and people gathered to mourn?

Originally Posted by GLENN GREENWALD

In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that after the U.S. kills people with drones in Pakistan, it then targets for death those who show up at the scene to rescue the survivors and retrieve the bodies, as well as those who gather to mourn the dead at funerals: “the CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals.” As The New York Times summarized those findings: “at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile” while “the bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals.”

This repellent practice continues. Over the last three days, the U.S. has launched three separate drone strikes in Pakistan: one on each day. As The Guardian reports, the U.S. has killed between 20 and 30 people in these strikes, the last of which, early this morning, killed between 8 and 15. It was the second strike, on Sunday, that targeted mourners gathered to grieve those killed in the first strike:

...

Whenever this Obama policy is raised, it cannot be emphasized enough that “secondary explosions” — attacking those who rescue victims of an inital explosion — has, according to official U.S. Government dogma, long been a hallmark of The Terrorists:

dafydd · 28th July 2012, 03:30 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/wo...pagewanted=all

Beerina · 28th July 2012, 12:47 PM

JihadJane again mourns bombers.

carlitos · 28th July 2012, 12:49 PM

Glenn Ellison Ellsworth Thomas Ellers Greenwald, of the sock-puppetry and magic boyfriend? Sweet.

BStrong · 28th July 2012, 04:17 PM

Without seeing the evidence it's difficult to know why the secondary strike is needed, but a plausible argument might be that there are more than one legit target in a given strike, and the second missile is needed to finish the job.

As far as hitting funerals go, I can see the logic of hitting an event where there are fellow travelers of the terrorist kind.

Doubt · 28th July 2012, 04:41 PM

Quoting from the book "Confront and Conceal", Chapter 10 which is "The dark side of a light foot print" (Location 4001 on a Kindle.) By David E. Sanger.

Quote:

Yet it seems clear that civilian casualties have now dropped dramatically, thanks to more precision weaponry and greater care-and the casualties are far lower than if conventional bombs were dropped on suspected al-Qaeda sanctuaries. "Every time I've looked into a report of numerous civilian deaths, it tracked back to Pakistani F-16 strike, or something similar," one senior intelligence official told me. But the United States cannot explain its strategy. That silence is part of the unspoken deal with Pakistan, which wants to hide its episodic participation in the drone program because of fear of what its cooperation with the United States would look like to the Pakistani public. And if a strike goes bad and the Civilians are killed, the Pakistani government can deny it ever knew about it.

Think about it. The Pakistani F-16's could be shooting down the US drones if they wanted to. Predators are slow flying non-stealth aircraft that hang around for hours at 30,000 feet. But instead Pakistan just publicly complains about the drones and do nothing to stop them.

JihadJane · 29th July 2012, 02:54 AM

Originally Posted by BStrong

Without seeing the evidence it's difficult to know why the secondary strike is needed, but a plausible argument might be that there are more than one legit target in a given strike, and the second missile is needed to finish the job.

As far as hitting funerals go, I can see the logic of hitting an event where there are fellow travelers of the terrorist kind.

Yes, terrorism is logical.

baron · 29th July 2012, 04:12 AM

All that's relevant is whether or not they were legitimate targets. Who cares what they were doing at the time? Emotional claptrap devoid of any facts.

kevsta · 29th July 2012, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by baron

All that's relevant is whether or not they were legitimate targets. Who cares what they were doing at the time? Emotional claptrap devoid of any facts.

and so randomly and callously vaporizing other innocents nearby using your playstation death-machine in the pursuit of "legitimate targets" (an oxymoron in this case if ever there was one) is fine?

nice.

baron · 29th July 2012, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by kevsta

and so randomly and callously vaporizing other innocents nearby using your playstation death-machine in the pursuit of "legitimate targets" (an oxymoron in this case if ever there was one) is fine?

nice.

In your hurry to be outraged you missed the fact where I didn't say I supported the bombings, I said... well, it's there in black and white, why not read it before embarrassing yourself?

mikedenk · 29th July 2012, 07:09 AM

A bunch of people getting together to show support for dead terrorists?

Sounds like a nice target-rich environment. Bombs away.

NoahFence · 29th July 2012, 07:19 AM

This just in...

War sucks.

fuelair · 29th July 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by carlitos

Glenn Ellison Ellsworth Thomas Ellers Greenwald, of the sock-puppetry and magic boyfriend? Sweet.

Well noted and posted!!!! Thanks!

Ryokan · 29th July 2012, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by mikedenk

A bunch of people getting together to show support for dead terrorists?

Sounds like a nice target-rich environment. Bombs away.

If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed? Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending? Would that mean you showed support for terrorism? Would it be ok to kill you?

BStrong · 29th July 2012, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Yes, terrorism is logical.

It makes perfect logic to the actors and planners.

triforcharity · 29th July 2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed? Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending? Would that mean you showed support for terrorism? Would it be ok to kill you?

If my brother was a terrorist, then no, I wouldn't. I would not attend his funeral. Sorry, I'm kinda an ass like that. My mother would not either.

mikedenk · 29th July 2012, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed? Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending? Would that mean you showed support for terrorism? Would it be ok to kill you?

- No, I would have already disowned him for being a disgrace to not only his family, but to humanity in general.

- Hopefully she would feel the same.

- Terrorists often enjoy an unfortunately high level support from their families and communities. They should be shunned rather than celebrated. Throw the body in a ditch and exile anybody who complains about it.

- To specifically target me as an innocent? No. But to mark me up as acceptable collateral damage if there is a decent chance of taking out other terrorists or material supporters of terrorism? Yes, absolutely.

I will say that it is unfortunate for the wives and children, since they generally have no choice in who they marry or are born to... but they are acceptable collateral damage in some situations, i.e. an opportunity to take out terrorists.

But how could you possibly know that there will be any viable targets at the funeral? Well, for one it's a reasonable suspicion. Two, the same intelligence source that identified the location and time of the funeral will probably have information on attendants.

Halfcentaur · 29th July 2012, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by mikedenk

- No, I would have already disowned him for being a disgrace to not only his family, but to humanity in general.

- Hopefully she would feel the same.

- Terrorists often enjoy an unfortunately high level support from their families and communities. They should be shunned rather than celebrated. Throw the body in a ditch and exile anybody who complains about it.

- To specifically target me as an innocent? No. But to mark me up as acceptable collateral damage if there is a decent chance of taking out other terrorists or material supporters of terrorism? Yes, absolutely.

I will say that it is unfortunate for the wives and children, since they generally have no choice in who they marry or are born to... but they are acceptable collateral damage in some situations, i.e. an opportunity to take out terrorists.

But how could you possibly know that there will be any viable targets at the funeral? Well, for one it's a reasonable suspicion. Two, the same intelligence source that identified the location and time of the funeral will probably have information on attendants.

I think if you're even the same species as something that would be a terrorist you deserve to be bombed.

BStrong · 29th July 2012, 02:26 PM

Damn! an outbreak of common sense on the 'net!

mikedenk · 29th July 2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Halfcentaur

I think if you're even the same species as something that would be a terrorist you deserve to be bombed.

Where would you draw the line?

I stand with President Obama: if there's an opportunity to take out a terrorist, do it. Family, friends, supporters, and various hangers-on in the way? Tough ****, don't associate with terrorists.

Seismosaurus · 29th July 2012, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed?

Nope.

Quote:

Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending?

I'd hope not.

Quote:

Would that mean you showed support for terrorism?

If I did attend? Yes, it would mean that I showed support for terrorism.

Quote:

Would it be ok to kill you?

Absolutely.

triforcharity · 29th July 2012, 04:48 PM

That post backfired quite quickly.....LOL!!

Seismosaurus · 29th July 2012, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

That post backfired quite quickly.....LOL!!

I'm a little biased on the subject of terrorist funerals. For quite a while we had something of a terrorist problem in the UK, and when one of those gentlemen died their funeral would often become a huge political event. A foreign flag was put on the coffin, politicians who supported the terrorists would show up... and often, several other fellows in terrorist "uniform" would show up and fire shots over the coffin to celebrate the terrorists. Many is the time I wished for the RAF to demonstrate the effectiveness of cluster bombs or napalm about then.

Are these funerals like those? I don't know. I would guess, and I freely admit that it is a guess, that the kinds of people who would show up to the funeral of an important terrorist would be the kind of people who supported him in life. So if a warhead or two finds its way there, I am not exactly going to be crying a river.

crimresearch · 29th July 2012, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

I'm a little biased on the subject of terrorist funerals. For quite a while we had something of a terrorist problem in the UK, and when one of those gentlemen died their funeral would often become a huge political event. A foreign flag was put on the coffin, politicians who supported the terrorists would show up... and often, several other fellows in terrorist "uniform" would show up and fire shots over the coffin to celebrate the terrorists. Many is the time I wished for the RAF to demonstrate the effectiveness of cluster bombs or napalm about then.

Are these funerals like those? I don't know. I would guess, and I freely admit that it is a guess, that the kinds of people who would show up to the funeral of an important terrorist would be the kind of people who supported him in life. So if a warhead or two finds its way there, I am not exactly going to be crying a river.

And that is a pertinent question. In the deadly games being played around the world, how many funerals are martyr rallies for more violence, and how many are private religious affairs attended only by innocent family?

A lousy situation made up of lousy components is unlikely to have a great outcome... much to the apparent schadenfreude of some people on the internet.

Seismosaurus · 29th July 2012, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

And that is a pertinent question. In the deadly games being played around the world, how many funerals are martyr rallies for more violence, and how many are private religious affairs attended only by innocent family?

In the end, you just have the trust that the guys who have their finger on the trigger (along with those who issue them their orders) will act responsibly. That may seem laughable in this cynical age, but really it isn't. The terrorists want to go around blowing up innocent people, but does anybody really believe the US does? They'll make mistakes, sure. And maybe they won't be as careful as they could be, or should be. And innocent people will die, and that sucks. But that's war for you.

Ryokan · 29th July 2012, 10:06 PM

I guess a lot of people here are just colder than I am. I don't care what my brotber had done, I'd still attend his funeral, at least for my own sake and the memories I had of him. It's sad to see some mean that I would deserve death for that.

The Dark Lord · 30th July 2012, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

I guess a lot of people here are just colder than I am. I don't care what my brotber had done, I'd still attend his funeral, at least for my own sake and the memories I had of him. It's sad to see some mean that I would deserve death for that.

I wouldn't say you deserve death for that. But if you died, oh well, **** happens.

JihadJane · 30th July 2012, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

The terrorists want to go around blowing up innocent people, but does anybody really believe the US does?

Yes, why shouldn't they? If the US didn't want to do go around blowing innocent people up, it would stop doing it. Instead, just like terrorists, they regard dead innocent people as a price worth paying, as "collateral damage", and keep on blowing them up because they regard their own cause (and lives) as morally superior.

Originally Posted by mikedenk

Where would you draw the line?

I stand with President Obama: if there's an opportunity to take out a terrorist, do it. Family, friends, supporters, and various hangers-on in the way? Tough ****, don't associate with terrorists.

How, then, in your rosy scenario, is President Obama's behavior different to that of a terrorist? You do know that collective punishment is a war crime, don't you?

Most of the comments so far, as far as I can see, have focussed on funerals, but the US also regards first responders as legitimate targets, people who arrive on the scene to tend to the dead and injured, and blows them up too.

JihadJane · 30th July 2012, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

I'm a little biased on the subject of terrorist funerals. For quite a while we had something of a terrorist problem in the UK, and when one of those gentlemen died their funeral would often become a huge political event. A foreign flag was put on the coffin, politicians who supported the terrorists would show up... and often, several other fellows in terrorist "uniform" would show up and fire shots over the coffin to celebrate the terrorists. Many is the time I wished for the RAF to demonstrate the effectiveness of cluster bombs or napalm about then.

Good to see you acknowledge that politics were involved. What evidence do you have that mourners in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia etc behave in the same as people in Northern ireland (you call them terrorists, others call them freedom fighters) and therefore deserve random death by superpower?

ETA: Why didn't the British bomb funerals in Northern Ireland?

Quote:

Are these funerals like those? I don't know. I would guess, and I freely admit that it is a guess, that the kinds of people who would show up to the funeral of an important terrorist would be the kind of people who supported him in life. So if a warhead or two finds its way there, I am not exactly going to be crying a river.

Based on your guesses?

The Queen shook hands Martin McGuinness the other day.

UNLoVedRebel · 30th July 2012, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by mikedenk

Where would you draw the line?

I stand with President Obama: if there's an opportunity to take out a terrorist, do it. Family, friends, supporters, and various hangers-on in the way? Tough ****, don't associate with terrorists.

The days of "we gotta get them terrorists" are over. Wiping out entire families to kill a potential terrorists: not cool. Hopefully, Obama will take a less Republican approach to issues in his next term. And I believe he will.

eta: As jane pointed out, the world is changing its attitudes toward violence. Another example is two of the world's largest and most violent street gangs--who were deadly rivals--just reached a truce.

kevsta · 30th July 2012, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by baron

In your hurry to be outraged you missed the fact where I didn't say I supported the bombings, I said... well, it's there in black and white, why not read it before embarrassing yourself?

lol. I was challenging the very basis of your statement, unless you can clarify that to my liking then I have zero further interest in what you do or don't support.

the use of the word "legitimate" with the US' terrorist activities is the ultimate oxymoron, and you can just remove the "oxy" for people who believe the "war" on those pesky tewwowists is anything but business as usual for USA Corp

"the bombings will continue until morale improves" lol

kevsta · 30th July 2012, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by mikedenk

Where would you draw the line?

I stand with President Obama: if there's an opportunity to take out a terrorist, do it. Family, friends, supporters, and various hangers-on in the way? Tough ****, don't associate with terrorists.

it'll be interesting to see if your views change when they're wiping out pesky tewwowists with hellfire missiles in your own country in a few years time.

make sure not to go to anyone's funeral.

dafydd · 30th July 2012, 03:05 AM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed? Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending? Would that mean you showed support for terrorism? Would it be ok to kill you?

I would disown my brother if he was a terrorist.

JihadJane · 30th July 2012, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I would disown my brother if he was a terrorist.

Wouldn't that depend on which side he was on? For example, terrorists in Syria are on "our" side at the moment.

kevsta · 30th July 2012, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Wouldn't that depend on which side he was on? For example, terrorists in Syria are on "our" side at the moment.

and in Libya the same.

baron · 30th July 2012, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by kevsta

lol. I was challenging the very basis of your statement, unless you can clarify that to my liking then I have zero further interest in what you do or don't support.

And what precisely is the basis of my statement that "All that's relevant is whether or not they were legitimate targets"? Logic? Reason? I really don't have time to defend my use of either.

dafydd · 30th July 2012, 03:41 AM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Wouldn't that depend on which side he was on? .

No.

kevsta · 30th July 2012, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by baron

And what precisely is the basis of my statement that "All that's relevant is whether or not they were legitimate targets"? Logic? Reason? I really don't have time to defend my use of either.

what precisely is wrong with it is the use of the word "legitimate" in the context of the US global warmongering.

there is nothing legitimate about this or this unless you are a religitard of one variety or another, and are attempting to follow the gospel of "an eye for an eye x100"

baron · 30th July 2012, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by kevsta

what precisely is wrong with it is the use of the word "legitimate" in the context of the US global warmongering.

there is nothing legitimate about this or this unless you are a religitard of one variety or another, and are attempting to follow the gospel of "an eye for an eye x100"

Which still doesn't invalidate my statement. That aside, if you think that there is not a single legitimate target in Pakistan then I'd suggest that it might be you who is skewed in their thinking.

angrysoba · 30th July 2012, 04:46 AM

Wow! There are an awful lot of brave laptop bombadiers on this thread. I must salute your courage, your strength and your indefatigability especially the guy for whom Bloody Sunday was obviously not enough and who wants to napalm communities that put out the wrong flag. I am sure that Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad would smile on your tactics and chortle at your coy words, "collateral damage". You have to love it!

28th July 2012, 03:24 AM	#1
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,763	U.S. again bombs mourners What kind of country targets rescuers, funeral attendees, and people gathered to mourn? Originally Posted by GLENN GREENWALD In February, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that after the U.S. kills people with drones in Pakistan, it then targets for death those who show up at the scene to rescue the survivors and retrieve the bodies, as well as those who gather to mourn the dead at funerals: “the CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals.” As The New York Times summarized those findings: “at least 50 civilians had been killed in follow-up strikes after they rushed to help those hit by a drone-fired missile” while “the bureau counted more than 20 other civilians killed in strikes on funerals.” This repellent practice continues. Over the last three days, the U.S. has launched three separate drone strikes in Pakistan: one on each day. As The Guardian reports, the U.S. has killed between 20 and 30 people in these strikes, the last of which, early this morning, killed between 8 and 15. It was the second strike, on Sunday, that targeted mourners gathered to grieve those killed in the first strike: ... Whenever this Obama policy is raised, it cannot be emphasized enough that “secondary explosions” — attacking those who rescue victims of an inital explosion — has, according to official U.S. Government dogma, long been a hallmark of The Terrorists: read more
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

28th July 2012, 03:30 AM	#2
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/wo...pagewanted=all
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

28th July 2012, 12:47 PM	#3
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	JihadJane again mourns bombers.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

28th July 2012, 12:49 PM	#4
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,549	Glenn Ellison Ellsworth Thomas Ellers Greenwald, of the sock-puppetry and magic boyfriend? Sweet.
	Last edited by carlitos; 28th July 2012 at 12:51 PM.

28th July 2012, 04:41 PM	#6
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,444	Quoting from the book "Confront and Conceal", Chapter 10 which is "The dark side of a light foot print" (Location 4001 on a Kindle.) By David E. Sanger. Quote: Yet it seems clear that civilian casualties have now dropped dramatically, thanks to more precision weaponry and greater care-and the casualties are far lower than if conventional bombs were dropped on suspected al-Qaeda sanctuaries. "Every time I've looked into a report of numerous civilian deaths, it tracked back to Pakistani F-16 strike, or something similar," one senior intelligence official told me. But the United States cannot explain its strategy. That silence is part of the unspoken deal with Pakistan, which wants to hide its episodic participation in the drone program because of fear of what its cooperation with the United States would look like to the Pakistani public. And if a strike goes bad and the Civilians are killed, the Pakistani government can deny it ever knew about it. Think about it. The Pakistani F-16's could be shooting down the US drones if they wanted to. Predators are slow flying non-stealth aircraft that hang around for hours at 30,000 feet. But instead Pakistan just publicly complains about the drones and do nothing to stop them.
Doubt Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 5,444	__________________ Doubt world tour locations: Mostly home for now. No international travel scheduled other than the Galapagos trip in March. Disclaimer: Not a high energy scientist!

28th July 2012, 04:17 PM	#5
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	Without seeing the evidence it's difficult to know why the secondary strike is needed, but a plausible argument might be that there are more than one legit target in a given strike, and the second missile is needed to finish the job. As far as hitting funerals go, I can see the logic of hitting an event where there are fellow travelers of the terrorist kind.

29th July 2012, 02:54 AM	#7
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,763	Originally Posted by BStrong Without seeing the evidence it's difficult to know why the secondary strike is needed, but a plausible argument might be that there are more than one legit target in a given strike, and the second missile is needed to finish the job. As far as hitting funerals go, I can see the logic of hitting an event where there are fellow travelers of the terrorist kind. Yes, terrorism is logical.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH Last edited by JihadJane; 29th July 2012 at 04:01 AM.

29th July 2012, 04:12 AM	#8
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	All that's relevant is whether or not they were legitimate targets. Who cares what they were doing at the time? Emotional claptrap devoid of any facts.
	__________________

29th July 2012, 04:19 AM	#9
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,484	Originally Posted by baron All that's relevant is whether or not they were legitimate targets. Who cares what they were doing at the time? Emotional claptrap devoid of any facts. and so randomly and callously vaporizing other innocents nearby using your playstation death-machine in the pursuit of "legitimate targets" (an oxymoron in this case if ever there was one) is fine? nice.
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

29th July 2012, 04:37 AM	#10
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by kevsta and so randomly and callously vaporizing other innocents nearby using your playstation death-machine in the pursuit of "legitimate targets" (an oxymoron in this case if ever there was one) is fine? nice. In your hurry to be outraged you missed the fact where I didn't say I supported the bombings, I said... well, it's there in black and white, why not read it before embarrassing yourself?
	__________________

29th July 2012, 07:09 AM	#11
mikedenk Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Midsouth, USA Posts: 793	A bunch of people getting together to show support for dead terrorists? Sounds like a nice target-rich environment. Bombs away.

29th July 2012, 07:19 AM	#12
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,329	This just in... War sucks.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

29th July 2012, 10:16 AM	#13
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	Originally Posted by carlitos Glenn Ellison Ellsworth Thomas Ellers Greenwald, of the sock-puppetry and magic boyfriend? Sweet. Well noted and posted!!!! Thanks!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,961	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

29th July 2012, 01:03 PM	#14
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,198	Originally Posted by mikedenk A bunch of people getting together to show support for dead terrorists? Sounds like a nice target-rich environment. Bombs away. If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed? Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending? Would that mean you showed support for terrorism? Would it be ok to kill you?

29th July 2012, 01:29 PM	#15
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	Originally Posted by JihadJane Yes, terrorism is logical. It makes perfect logic to the actors and planners.

29th July 2012, 01:39 PM	#16
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,236	Originally Posted by Ryokan If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed? Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending? Would that mean you showed support for terrorism? Would it be ok to kill you? If my brother was a terrorist, then no, I wouldn't. I would not attend his funeral. Sorry, I'm kinda an ass like that. My mother would not either.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

29th July 2012, 01:45 PM	#17
mikedenk Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Midsouth, USA Posts: 793	Originally Posted by Ryokan If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed? Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending? Would that mean you showed support for terrorism? Would it be ok to kill you? - No, I would have already disowned him for being a disgrace to not only his family, but to humanity in general. - Hopefully she would feel the same. - Terrorists often enjoy an unfortunately high level support from their families and communities. They should be shunned rather than celebrated. Throw the body in a ditch and exile anybody who complains about it. - To specifically target me as an innocent? No. But to mark me up as acceptable collateral damage if there is a decent chance of taking out other terrorists or material supporters of terrorism? Yes, absolutely. I will say that it is unfortunate for the wives and children, since they generally have no choice in who they marry or are born to... but they are acceptable collateral damage in some situations, i.e. an opportunity to take out terrorists. But how could you possibly know that there will be any viable targets at the funeral? Well, for one it's a reasonable suspicion. Two, the same intelligence source that identified the location and time of the funeral will probably have information on attendants.

29th July 2012, 02:06 PM	#18
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965	Originally Posted by mikedenk - No, I would have already disowned him for being a disgrace to not only his family, but to humanity in general. - Hopefully she would feel the same. - Terrorists often enjoy an unfortunately high level support from their families and communities. They should be shunned rather than celebrated. Throw the body in a ditch and exile anybody who complains about it. - To specifically target me as an innocent? No. But to mark me up as acceptable collateral damage if there is a decent chance of taking out other terrorists or material supporters of terrorism? Yes, absolutely. I will say that it is unfortunate for the wives and children, since they generally have no choice in who they marry or are born to... but they are acceptable collateral damage in some situations, i.e. an opportunity to take out terrorists. But how could you possibly know that there will be any viable targets at the funeral? Well, for one it's a reasonable suspicion. Two, the same intelligence source that identified the location and time of the funeral will probably have information on attendants. I think if you're even the same species as something that would be a terrorist you deserve to be bombed.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,965

29th July 2012, 02:26 PM	#19
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 3,829	Damn! an outbreak of common sense on the 'net!

29th July 2012, 03:09 PM	#20
mikedenk Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Midsouth, USA Posts: 793	Originally Posted by Halfcentaur I think if you're even the same species as something that would be a terrorist you deserve to be bombed. Where would you draw the line? I stand with President Obama: if there's an opportunity to take out a terrorist, do it. Family, friends, supporters, and various hangers-on in the way? Tough ****, don't associate with terrorists.

29th July 2012, 04:15 PM	#21
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,549	Originally Posted by Ryokan If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed? Nope. Quote: Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending? I'd hope not. Quote: Would that mean you showed support for terrorism? If I did attend? Yes, it would mean that I showed support for terrorism. Quote: Would it be ok to kill you? Absolutely.
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

29th July 2012, 04:48 PM	#22
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,236	That post backfired quite quickly.....LOL!!
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

29th July 2012, 05:33 PM	#23
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,549	Originally Posted by triforcharity That post backfired quite quickly.....LOL!! I'm a little biased on the subject of terrorist funerals. For quite a while we had something of a terrorist problem in the UK, and when one of those gentlemen died their funeral would often become a huge political event. A foreign flag was put on the coffin, politicians who supported the terrorists would show up... and often, several other fellows in terrorist "uniform" would show up and fire shots over the coffin to celebrate the terrorists. Many is the time I wished for the RAF to demonstrate the effectiveness of cluster bombs or napalm about then. Are these funerals like those? I don't know. I would guess, and I freely admit that it is a guess, that the kinds of people who would show up to the funeral of an important terrorist would be the kind of people who supported him in life. So if a warhead or two finds its way there, I am not exactly going to be crying a river.
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

29th July 2012, 06:13 PM	#24
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Seismosaurus I'm a little biased on the subject of terrorist funerals. For quite a while we had something of a terrorist problem in the UK, and when one of those gentlemen died their funeral would often become a huge political event. A foreign flag was put on the coffin, politicians who supported the terrorists would show up... and often, several other fellows in terrorist "uniform" would show up and fire shots over the coffin to celebrate the terrorists. Many is the time I wished for the RAF to demonstrate the effectiveness of cluster bombs or napalm about then. Are these funerals like those? I don't know. I would guess, and I freely admit that it is a guess, that the kinds of people who would show up to the funeral of an important terrorist would be the kind of people who supported him in life. So if a warhead or two finds its way there, I am not exactly going to be crying a river. And that is a pertinent question. In the deadly games being played around the world, how many funerals are martyr rallies for more violence, and how many are private religious affairs attended only by innocent family? A lousy situation made up of lousy components is unlikely to have a great outcome... much to the apparent schadenfreude of some people on the internet.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

29th July 2012, 06:30 PM	#25
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,549	Originally Posted by crimresearch And that is a pertinent question. In the deadly games being played around the world, how many funerals are martyr rallies for more violence, and how many are private religious affairs attended only by innocent family? In the end, you just have the trust that the guys who have their finger on the trigger (along with those who issue them their orders) will act responsibly. That may seem laughable in this cynical age, but really it isn't. The terrorists want to go around blowing up innocent people, but does anybody really believe the US does? They'll make mistakes, sure. And maybe they won't be as careful as they could be, or should be. And innocent people will die, and that sucks. But that's war for you.
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

29th July 2012, 10:06 PM	#26
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,198	I guess a lot of people here are just colder than I am. I don't care what my brotber had done, I'd still attend his funeral, at least for my own sake and the memories I had of him. It's sad to see some mean that I would deserve death for that.

30th July 2012, 12:40 AM	#27
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	Originally Posted by Ryokan I guess a lot of people here are just colder than I am. I don't care what my brotber had done, I'd still attend his funeral, at least for my own sake and the memories I had of him. It's sad to see some mean that I would deserve death for that. I wouldn't say you deserve death for that. But if you died, oh well, **** happens.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860

30th July 2012, 01:43 AM	#28
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,763	Originally Posted by Seismosaurus The terrorists want to go around blowing up innocent people, but does anybody really believe the US does? Yes, why shouldn't they? If the US didn't want to do go around blowing innocent people up, it would stop doing it. Instead, just like terrorists, they regard dead innocent people as a price worth paying, as "collateral damage", and keep on blowing them up because they regard their own cause (and lives) as morally superior. Originally Posted by mikedenk Where would you draw the line? I stand with President Obama: if there's an opportunity to take out a terrorist, do it. Family, friends, supporters, and various hangers-on in the way? Tough ****, don't associate with terrorists. How, then, in your rosy scenario, is President Obama's behavior different to that of a terrorist? You do know that collective punishment is a war crime, don't you? Most of the comments so far, as far as I can see, have focussed on funerals, but the US also regards first responders as legitimate targets, people who arrive on the scene to tend to the dead and injured, and blows them up too.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

30th July 2012, 01:51 AM	#29
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,763	Originally Posted by Seismosaurus I'm a little biased on the subject of terrorist funerals. For quite a while we had something of a terrorist problem in the UK, and when one of those gentlemen died their funeral would often become a huge political event. A foreign flag was put on the coffin, politicians who supported the terrorists would show up... and often, several other fellows in terrorist "uniform" would show up and fire shots over the coffin to celebrate the terrorists. Many is the time I wished for the RAF to demonstrate the effectiveness of cluster bombs or napalm about then. Good to see you acknowledge that politics were involved. What evidence do you have that mourners in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia etc behave in the same as people in Northern ireland (you call them terrorists, others call them freedom fighters) and therefore deserve random death by superpower? ETA: Why didn't the British bomb funerals in Northern Ireland? Quote: Are these funerals like those? I don't know. I would guess, and I freely admit that it is a guess, that the kinds of people who would show up to the funeral of an important terrorist would be the kind of people who supported him in life. So if a warhead or two finds its way there, I am not exactly going to be crying a river. Based on your guesses? The Queen shook hands Martin McGuinness the other day.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH Last edited by JihadJane; 30th July 2012 at 02:12 AM.

30th July 2012, 02:08 AM	#30
UNLoVedRebel Hard Knocks Doctorate Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: School of Hard Knocks Posts: 5,507	Originally Posted by mikedenk Where would you draw the line? I stand with President Obama: if there's an opportunity to take out a terrorist, do it. Family, friends, supporters, and various hangers-on in the way? Tough ****, don't associate with terrorists. The days of "we gotta get them terrorists" are over. Wiping out entire families to kill a potential terrorists: not cool. Hopefully, Obama will take a less Republican approach to issues in his next term. And I believe he will. eta: As jane pointed out, the world is changing its attitudes toward violence. Another example is two of the world's largest and most violent street gangs--who were deadly rivals--just reached a truce.
	__________________ "All the Officialiers here typically have rancid alien avatars or else some kind of violent military-type avatar. Once again affirming my contention that 9/11 Officialiers are the most violent, murderous, group of people in the United States. Both statistically confirmed, but also anecdotally affirmed in almost every case of active pro-Officialers." - FloydGoethe Last edited by UNLoVedRebel; 30th July 2012 at 02:11 AM.

30th July 2012, 02:46 AM	#31
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,484	Originally Posted by baron In your hurry to be outraged you missed the fact where I didn't say I supported the bombings, I said... well, it's there in black and white, why not read it before embarrassing yourself? lol. I was challenging the very basis of your statement, unless you can clarify that to my liking then I have zero further interest in what you do or don't support. the use of the word "legitimate" with the US' terrorist activities is the ultimate oxymoron, and you can just remove the "oxy" for people who believe the "war" on those pesky tewwowists is anything but business as usual for USA Corp "the bombings will continue until morale improves" lol
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous Last edited by kevsta; 30th July 2012 at 02:47 AM.

30th July 2012, 02:50 AM	#32
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,484	Originally Posted by mikedenk Where would you draw the line? I stand with President Obama: if there's an opportunity to take out a terrorist, do it. Family, friends, supporters, and various hangers-on in the way? Tough ****, don't associate with terrorists. it'll be interesting to see if your views change when they're wiping out pesky tewwowists with hellfire missiles in your own country in a few years time. make sure not to go to anyone's funeral.
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous

30th July 2012, 03:05 AM	#33
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,475	Originally Posted by Ryokan If your brother was a terrorist, would you not still attend his funeral if he was killed? Wouldn't your mother also insist on attending? Would that mean you showed support for terrorism? Would it be ok to kill you? I would disown my brother if he was a terrorist.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

30th July 2012, 03:09 AM	#34
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,763	Originally Posted by dafydd I would disown my brother if he was a terrorist. Wouldn't that depend on which side he was on? For example, terrorists in Syria are on "our" side at the moment.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

30th July 2012, 03:12 AM	#35
kevsta RBL CHeck Failed Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: in the shadows Posts: 2,484	Originally Posted by JihadJane Wouldn't that depend on which side he was on? For example, terrorists in Syria are on "our" side at the moment. and in Libya the same.
	__________________ "The world will soon wake up to the reality that everyone is broke and can collect nothing from the bankrupt, who are owed unlimited amounts by the insolvent, who are attempting to make late payments on a bank holiday in the wrong country, with an unacceptable currency, against defaulted collateral, of which nobody is sure who holds title." - Anonymous