By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Has Allegedly Killed 1400+ Civilians In the Past Month

Goatseye on 10 April 2017
Aura7541 said:
VGPolyglot said:

The United States was more than aware of the situation. They were involved directly, like in the 1990s in the Gulf War when the Saudis gave them massive amounts of money in order to do their bidding. They are also selling weapons to the Saudis so they can attack the rebels in Yemen. They also gave Saudi Arabia hundreds of millions of dollars of aid in the 1970s.

This proves the guilty act, but not necessarily the guilty mind. Appeasing Saudi Arabia does not necessarily mean endorsing Wahhabism. The US wanted to maintain a "good" relationship with Saudi Arabia for economical reasons and prevent a dictator from going even more wild. However, in the US's naiveté, it has led to the growth of Wahhabism. Overall, it's more of the US being very oblivious to the long-term repurcussions than the US having the actual intent of promoting Islamization. We see the same pattern with Afghanistan and Iraq.

There's also the possible scenario where the US was aware of the situation, but didn't believe that widespread Islamization would occur. So again, naiveté.

"Naivite" are your assumptions. 

United States has been in the business of installing ruthless regimes and destabilizing  governments in countries where they have business interests since the beggining of the last century. 

In late 1940s and early 50s, US sponsored a coup in Syria with the intent of making them sign treaties with Israel, ratify Trans-Arabian Pipeline (oil) and ban communism.

US directly funded regimes that fundamentally opressed nationalistic views of their lands and were against Western loot of their property. That's how US got behind the Saudi's ambition to squash moderate Islam and get the whole Middle-East on their hand, through religious fundamentalism (Wahhabism). 



Around the Network
ArchangelMadzz on 10 April 2017
Aeolus451 said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

Wow. Really? You know they were people right? 

Yeah, I know but I literally don't care especially when the people who were the targets purposely put civilians near them and they dress as civilians themselves. People die in wars. We don't check the bomb sites to do an actual count on what was hit. They rely on the locals to give them "intel" on what was hit. It's the whole reason why militaries use uniforms and don't put military targets in populated areas. If they dress as civilians then they really can't complain about civilians getting hit. 

But that's not what's happening. The US is and has been for years, bombing places with shit intel and only killing innocent people. You're literally just laughing about the death of men women and children for being born in the wrong place. 

If there was a band of people living in the US killing pockets of people in asia, and Iraq carpet bombed florida because they thought they were there, what do you think would happen? 



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Vertigo-X on 10 April 2017
VGPolyglot said:
TheLegendaryWolf said:

The 1400 civilians killed weren't targeted. The US military didn't just say"time to kill more innocents" no, you can thank ISIS cowards for using civilians as human shields every time the allied coalition tries to eradicate terrorists. It's unfortunate that so many civilians lost their lives but the cold hard truth is that it was inevitable. By your logic the US and the coalition should just leave ISIS alone to their devices and let them take over the country, not only endangering the citizens but also the humanitarian aids that are helping the injured civilians. 

The United States knew that they'd kill innocent people with those strikes. Also, why do you think that the United States cares that they're killing civilians? They massacred innocent civilians numerous times.

Usually I disagree with your posts, but this time I agree. I find it ludicrous that military leaders around the world don't realize the collateral damage is causing this to be a feedback loop. They have to know that they're creating more terrorists with these attacks, which leads one to believe they are, in fact, intentionally doing so.



The BuShA owns all!

numberwang on 10 April 2017

The article itself disputes these higher numbers, making the headline useless for comparison.

Airwars divides its reports on civilian casualties into several categories of certainty. Of the 1,484 reported to have been killed in March, 363 are considered “fair” (at least two credible sources, possibly along with visual evidence), with 238 labeled “weak” and 883 “contested.”

The larger picture is the long-term development, in or out of the Middle East?



outlawauron on 10 April 2017
kopstudent89 said:
outlawauron said:

Also, the sole criticism of coalition forces in Syria is the most tone-deaf of all criticisms. The damage done by the Coalition forces is a barely worthy of a footnote in the list of tragedies.

For those interested in learning more about what's been done in terms of war crimes and human rights violations, I highly encourage you to read into the Syrian Accountability Project and the Syrian Network for Human Rights.

Directly they haven't. But ISIS's involvement in Syria wasn't in the news till 2013 when they were there from the start..

Also US's involvement in Mosul is worse than the Syrian government's in Aleppo. So sure you can twist like that

Well the Syrian regime has killed exponenitally more civilians than any other group in Syria. That's not twisting or spinning.

Also, I find it very odd, that Newsweek quotes Syrian  Network for Human Rights for data on deaths in Aleppo, but not for fatalities in the month of March. SNHR reported that the civilian deaths in all of Syria by all groups to be less than 1400...



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
VGPolyglot on 10 April 2017
Aeolus451 said:

I looked around for a good gif for a bit to go with the topic of this thread and here ya go.

Here's my general reaction to the topic. 

Yes, I already knew that you didn't give a shit about innocent people dying.



Aura7541 on 10 April 2017
Goatseye said:
Aura7541 said:

This proves the guilty act, but not necessarily the guilty mind. Appeasing Saudi Arabia does not necessarily mean endorsing Wahhabism. The US wanted to maintain a "good" relationship with Saudi Arabia for economical reasons and prevent a dictator from going even more wild. However, in the US's naiveté, it has led to the growth of Wahhabism. Overall, it's more of the US being very oblivious to the long-term repurcussions than the US having the actual intent of promoting Islamization. We see the same pattern with Afghanistan and Iraq.

There's also the possible scenario where the US was aware of the situation, but didn't believe that widespread Islamization would occur. So again, naiveté.

"Naivite" are your assumptions. 

United States has been in the business of installing ruthless regimes and destabilizing  governments in countries where they have business interests since the beggining of the last century. 

In late 1940s and early 50s, US sponsored a coup in Syria with the intent of making them sign treaties with Israel, ratify Trans-Arabian Pipeline (oil) and ban communism.

US directly funded regimes that fundamentally opressed nationalistic views of their lands and were against Western loot of their property. That's how US got behind the Saudi's ambition to squash moderate Islam and get the whole Middle-East on their hand, through religious fundamentalism (Wahhabism). 

However, you also made your fair share of assumptions. You showed that the US had interests that did not include spreading Islamization. However, in trying to achieve those interests, it led to a bunch of nasty side effects. The US's involvement in the Middle East was a series of short-term minded actions with little regard of the long-term consequences.

You also made a mistake of assuming that this is a black-and-white situation. I do not completely dismiss the notion that the US had the intent to spreading Islamization, but the problem is that addressing US collectively is a wide assumption. There might have been certain people in the US government who want to spread extreme radical Islam in the Middle East, but they might not be representative of the general sentiment. Most likely and logically, it's somewhere in the middle. To conclude that the US had nothing, but malicious intent is a rather naive one.



contestgamer on 10 April 2017

1,400 isnt that many in that part of the world so I can see why it wouldn't get a lot of attention. It does suck and you dont want to see innocent people harmed, but it doesnt help to be crying over spilled milk. Even though these people may be called casualties, I believe that if you interviewed them, many if not most of them would have illiberal opinions, such as negative opinions about gay people, certain sexist beliefs and beliefs about religious supremacy. So they're really not that innocent - they may not have committed a crime - but the beliefs of what is likely a majority of these casualties makes them less than 'innocent' IMO.



AZWification on 10 April 2017

At least the war aspect of the USA will never change, regardless if president is Bush, Obama or fucking Trump.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

contestgamer on 10 April 2017
SpokenTruth said:
contestgamer said:
1,400 isnt that many in that part of the world so I can see why it wouldn't get a lot of attention. It does suck and you dont want to see innocent people harmed, but it doesnt help to be crying over spilled milk. Even though these people may be called casualties, I believe that if you interviewed them, many if not most of them would have illiberal opinions, such as negative opinions about gay people, certain sexist beliefs and beliefs about religious supremacy. So they're really not that innocent - they may not have committed a crime - but the beliefs of what is likely a majority of these casualties makes them less than 'innocent' IMO.

So their conservative beliefs make them less deservant of life? 

I dont consider it conservative, I consider it intolerant and inferior. Any beliefs that impose negative consequences on a follow human being is not equal to a belief that promotes tolerance and equality between people regardless of race, sex or religion. Believing that gays should be jailed to me is not a valid belief, it's a crime against gays and isn't equal to a belief that promotes equality. So if you believe in denying a full life to others then your own life becomes less deserving.