71–80 of 273 posts
The answer is much worse than I could imagine: “a guy with a radio … which is reasonable grounds for suspicion”. Nothing accidental about it. These should be considered war crimes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty sure the protests during Vietnam were just as large, if not more so. Journalism finds a way, like internet, and genetically modified dinosaurs.
> Pretty sure the protests during Vietnam were just as large That is the parent comment's point: there was more graphic coverage of the Vietnam available to a typical viewer, so the feeling against it was stronger.
> accidental killing of children On purpose is a war crime now, so it has to be accidental. Starting/continuing a war is not accidental though. It sure can be baseless (imho most if not all recent US wars were baseless).
The war on ISIS? I heard Raqqa was lovely under their control.
This reads like an AI-generated translation. It looks like the source that they're plagiarizing is this Daily Mail article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9924567/US-drone-pi... The points of difference have a strong smell of machine translation. E.g. "Killing for the sake of killing" turns into "I’ll kill you for the killing"; "Connecting Vets" becomes "Veterinary connection". @dang This article should pro…
No it's not, see: https://web.archive.org/web/20210825045512/https://www.audac...
The submitted link (eminetra.co.uk) does look like a ML-generated copy.
Talk about a waste: of lives, of money, of time, of effort that could have gone to far more productive purposes.
Don't waste your time, this video doesn't show anything about killing accidentally. War sucks and civilian casualties do happen but this says nothing. Taliban were known for dressing as females to get out of situations and using children as "cover".
Hiding behind women and children, you say? MONSTERS!! http://www.angryflower.com/hiding.html
Can someone explain the origins of the slang for 'charger'? That one would not occur to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like the general population very largely don't support the Taliban, but for whatever reasons the urban populations aren't willing or able to stand up a credible defence. I suspect the problem is the Taliban are 'only' instituting Islamic law. It's hard to fire up a Muslim population against implementing, er, Islam even if they are against the actual resulting policies.
They don't based on what, UN polls?
Having watched a few documentaries on the war, from multiple periods, my first thought was “who did they target with these drone strikes?” seeing as they usually had no idea who or where the enemy was. The answer is much worse than I could imagine: “a guy with a radio … which is reasonable grounds for suspicion”. Nothing accidental about it. These should be considered war crimes.
> accidental killing of children On purpose is a war crime now, so it has to be accidental. Starting/continuing a war is not accidental though. It sure can be baseless (imho most if not all recent US wars were baseless).
The war on ISIS? I heard Raqqa was lovely under their control.