Boy, this'll teach people not to post kittens in THIS comm. Ever.
I would point out strategic reasons (DISCLAIMER: NOT REASONS I AGREE WITH, LEST I BE CALLED A MURDERER) that some sides choose to kill civilians, and any number of other things, but since my comment wouldn't equal EWWW MILITARY SUCKS, I'm not going to bother.
"now cause more civilian casualties than any other tactic, representing 44 per cent of the total civilian casualties in 2009, or 1,054 people killed." Aerial attacks by U.S. and other international military forces caused 359 civilian deaths last year, he said.
Total: 1,054 US/Military: 359
Damn, we better step up our game, we're not even at 50%. /facetious
strategic reasons (DISCLAIMER: NOT REASONS I AGREE WITH, LEST I BE CALLED A MURDERER) that some sides choose to kill civilians
do enlighten us, please. i actually have never heard of a good strategic reason to kill civilians (unless you're trying to get rid of civilians I suppose-- i have heard of gaining civilian trust by minimizing casualties.
In other news, the sky is blue. It’s good that news organisations are reporting on the fact that civilians invariably die in wars though, because most people don’t seem to think things through enough to realise how often it happens.
The US is responsible for varying amounts of destabilization in areas in which they hold conflicts as well -- I'd be willing to say that a good deal of the 100,000 civilians dead in Iraq that weren't directly from US military force are still a responsibility of our nation for the ensuing civil wars we caused by so gallantly ousting the military dictator that we'd graciously installed. Which is especially ironic considering that the crime we used as a justification for removing him was one which he committed while he was on our payroll -- and which we were blithely aware of at the time. And that's completely removed from the discourse by just saying "Saddam bad man", which speaks nothing of the problems of the underlying policy as long as the justification is shallowly sufficient -- nobody's going to dispute that crimes were committed, but it's weird to see a criminal trying to topple over another, and the resultant exploitation of the region shows that's a tactic not to be trusted
( ... )
Comments 23
Reply
I would point out strategic reasons (DISCLAIMER: NOT REASONS I AGREE WITH, LEST I BE CALLED A MURDERER) that some sides choose to kill civilians, and any number of other things, but since my comment wouldn't equal EWWW MILITARY SUCKS, I'm not going to bother.
"now cause more civilian casualties than any other tactic, representing 44 per cent of the total civilian casualties in 2009, or 1,054 people killed." Aerial attacks by U.S. and other international military forces caused 359 civilian deaths last year, he said.
Total: 1,054
US/Military: 359
Damn, we better step up our game, we're not even at 50%. /facetious
Reply
do enlighten us, please. i actually have never heard of a good strategic reason to kill civilians (unless you're trying to get rid of civilians I suppose-- i have heard of gaining civilian trust by minimizing casualties.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment