|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 17, 2021 15:06:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 17, 2021 15:07:39 GMT -5
Hey, n00b, want to walk this one back? Word out of Kabul tonight is that we killed nine civilians in a drone strike, including six children. That's interesting phrasing. You know civilians weren't the target right? It was the terrorist and his truck full of explosives hoping to pull off an attack like the one last week that killed over 100.It would be fantastic if we could could keep all civilians safe. But 9 is a lot less than 100.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Sept 17, 2021 15:24:36 GMT -5
So, like, what happened to the real target? Or was he the "real target" but they had bad intelligence info?
What happened to the claims that they were sure they had really hit a vehicle full of explosives because there was a large secondary explosion?
There was no attack on the airport that day, so what happened? Why did they kill this guy and his family?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 17, 2021 15:56:42 GMT -5
So, like, what happened to the real target? Or was he the "real target" but they had bad intelligence info? What happened to the claims that they were sure they had really hit a vehicle full of explosives because there was a large secondary explosion? There was no attack on the airport that day, so what happened? Why did they kill this guy and his family? Hard to say! There's apparently going to be no consequences or discipline for anyone involved, so I guess everything . . . went according to plan?
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 17, 2021 15:59:31 GMT -5
So, like, what happened to the real target? Or was he the "real target" but they had bad intelligence info? What happened to the claims that they were sure they had really hit a vehicle full of explosives because there was a large secondary explosion? There was no attack on the airport that day, so what happened? Why did they kill this guy and his family? Hard to say! There's apparently going to be no consequences or discipline for anyone involved, so I guess everything . . . went according to plan? That's just not true and a cheap shot. This is a tragedy. Military leaders have been honest and have taken responsibility for this strike. And while it's in no way fair there will be reparations.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 17, 2021 16:01:37 GMT -5
Hard to say! There's apparently going to be no consequences or discipline for anyone involved, so I guess everything . . . went according to plan? That's just not true and a cheap shot. This is a tragedy. Military leaders have been honest and have taken responsibility for this strike. And while it's in no way fair there will be reparations. Well, they lied about it immediately after the strike. They only fessed up because of extensive reporting into exactly who this guy was.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 17, 2021 16:02:55 GMT -5
That's just not true and a cheap shot. This is a tragedy. Military leaders have been honest and have taken responsibility for this strike. And while it's in no way fair there will be reparations. Well, they lied about it immediately after the strike. They only fessed up because of extensive reporting into exactly who this guy was. There was an investigation and Military leaders came clean. Stop with the cheap shots.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 17, 2021 16:04:25 GMT -5
Well, they lied about it immediately after the strike. They only fessed up because of extensive reporting into exactly who this guy was. There was an investigation and Military leaders came clean. Stop with the cheap shots. Cheap shots against . . . the most powerful military in history? Like, are we supposed to take it easy on them when they murk half-a-dozen children and lie about it?
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 17, 2021 16:53:43 GMT -5
There was an investigation and Military leaders came clean. Stop with the cheap shots. Cheap shots against . . . the most powerful military in history? Like, are we supposed to take it easy on them when they murk half-a-dozen children and lie about it? they didn't lie about it. No one is going to comment until they do an investigation. Do you really think there is anyone in the military that wants to kill an innocent family?
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Sept 17, 2021 16:58:54 GMT -5
Hey, n00b, want to walk this one back? That's interesting phrasing. You know civilians weren't the target right? It was the terrorist and his truck full of explosives hoping to pull off an attack like the one last week that killed over 100.It would be fantastic if we could could keep all civilians safe. But 9 is a lot less than 100. Yes and no. If somebody attacks Americans, I don't think it is in our long-term national interest to not respond. There need to be disincentives to do such things. Where it gets gray is if these people attack Americans then go hide in civilian areas. Do we just throw our hands up and say 'c'est la vie'? Now, if we genuinely didn't have any sort of solid intel and were bombing just for the sake of bombing and didn't have a real target, that is terrible. I'm not sure if that's what this investigation is saying? Or that this family was collateral damage (which is tragic). Or if we thought we had solid intel that turned out to be wrong? None of these scenarios are good. But they are certainly different levels of bad.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 17, 2021 17:08:23 GMT -5
Hey, n00b, want to walk this one back? Yes and no. If somebody attacks Americans, I don't think it is in our long-term national interest to not respond. There need to be disincentives to do such things. Where it gets gray is if these people attack Americans then go hide in civilian areas. Do we just throw our hands up and say 'c'est la vie'? Now, if we genuinely didn't have any sort of solid intel and were bombing just for the sake of bombing and didn't have a real target, that is terrible. I'm not sure if that's what this investigation is saying? Or that this family was collateral damage (which is tragic). Or if we thought we had solid intel that turned out to be wrong? None of these scenarios are good. But they are certainly different levels of bad. You don't kill civilians for the sake of revenge.
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Sept 17, 2021 17:10:17 GMT -5
Check out the movie, Eye In The Sky.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Sept 17, 2021 17:33:23 GMT -5
Cheap shots against . . . the most powerful military in history? Like, are we supposed to take it easy on them when they murk half-a-dozen children and lie about it? they didn't lie about it. No one is going to comment until they do an investigation. Do you really think there is anyone in the military that wants to kill an innocent family? Uhh yeah
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Sept 17, 2021 17:34:31 GMT -5
Hey, n00b, want to walk this one back? Yes and no. If somebody attacks Americans, I don't think it is in our long-term national interest to not respond. There need to be disincentives to do such things. Where it gets gray is if these people attack Americans then go hide in civilian areas. Do we just throw our hands up and say 'c'est la vie'? Now, if we genuinely didn't have any sort of solid intel and were bombing just for the sake of bombing and didn't have a real target, that is terrible. I'm not sure if that's what this investigation is saying? Or that this family was collateral damage (which is tragic). Or if we thought we had solid intel that turned out to be wrong? None of these scenarios are good. But they are certainly different levels of bad. Considering how often the US drone strikes civilians Im not really inclined to give them the charity of "bad Intel" or "collateral damage"
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Sept 17, 2021 17:36:53 GMT -5
Hey, n00b, want to walk this one back? If somebody attacks Americans, I don't think it is in our long-term national interest to not respond. There need to be disincentives to do such things. 1. How is that working out for us? 2. Should revenge killings be part of US policy? Because that wasn't the stated rationale for the strike. Hiding in civilian areas? The guy was a civilian. So were his nineWhere else would he be? An aid worker for an American organization, in fact. They put out a statement immediately saying he was one of their people and decidedly *not* a terrorist. Sounds more like "no."
|
|