251–260 of 273 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked.
Source please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not malice but also not just simply accidents - more like negligence. We can't dismiss mistakes in war as simply a cost of doing business. > But one side tries it's best to be accountable and limit human suffering while still carrying out missions. Is that side really doing their "best"? I feel like a lot of these mistakes are avoidable with better procedures, training, and reducing being in situations where mi…
>>>We can't dismiss mistakes in war as simply a cost of doing business. When you are putting fallible human beings into the most stressful and demanding situations imaginable, it's unreasonable to NOT factor in a baseline level of human error. >>>I feel like a lot of these mistakes are avoidable with better procedures, training, What specific procedures would you like to adjust? Escalation of Force? Rules of Engageme…
I'm not saying human error doesn't exist, but that the amount we tolerate is too high.
> Yeah, that's a decently low casualty rate for TWO DECADES of dropping bombs on a country, across countless thousands of aircraft sorties.
It's easy to reduce that casualty rate: stop dropping bombs on a country for two decades. My point is that the cost of a civilian death is too low. If we considered the moral cost and not just the strategic cost, our calculations would conclude that we can't afford to start this war. The dubious moral reasons for doing it are not outweighed by the moral harm that would result.
I get that you're addressing the technical aspects of collateral damage in a war, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In a justified war, we can tolerate civilian deaths as a necessary evil, but if the war is not just, then aren't all such deaths an unnecessary evil?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"kill with no risk to their own service men" Reducing the risk to your own troops is a fundamental concern of most armies out there and has been for millennia. Robot warfare is a logical endpoint of such development. I cannot see anyone opting out of this race and remaining militarily relevant.
> Robot warfare is a logical endpoint of such development Robot vs. Robot is unlikely to settle wars - we may as well play chess rather than wage war and humans have too much bloodlust to solve differences that way. What is likely to happen is having country A's robots in country B's homeland killing humans, while battling country B's robots in A's homeland. What constitutes a "war front" will be really confusing whe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be silly; this is not anyone hiding anything. If a website survives based on advertising and needs to now pay a service to keep them up to date with the latest EU regs, then they may just switch on GeoIP filtering and be done with it.
And I'm sure it's just a happy coincidence that news about US military murdering civilians cant be accessed outside of the US :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to be a little dismissive of the question, but that's how the laws work in the united states. If someone was drunk that's a little different, but from the perspective of someone making a mistake on the road, and a family ends up dead - the person that made the mistake (assuming they prove that in court) does not end up with a murder charge. It may still end up being manslaughter and jail time. Now to more s…
> But our country tries to prevent that at ALL COSTS. I agree. Allcaps included. > We do so by making sure other countries are stable. Ehh... that part is more dubious. For example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Central_Intelligence_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israeli media and the state doesn't release gory pictures of their dead children from terrorist attacks for propaganda, out of respect for their citizens. Palestinian Media and Hamas have absolutely no problem releasing footage of dead children to manipulate you on the other hand, no matter how out of context, old, fake, or even children they accidentally killed with failed rockets. They know you want to root for the…
> Israeli media and the state doesn't release gory pictures of their dead children from terrorist attacks for propaganda, out of respect for their citizens. Please, I want to be proven wrong here
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The military method to define any male (and sometimes women) above a certain age as an combatant was leaked 2010. This is simply a reminder that the same indiscriminating warfare are continuing. If anything this article reminds me of domestic terrorists that define a certain demographic as being enemy combatants and then goes to indiscriminate killing spree. The major difference seems to be that the military personal…
In certain areas of operation, yes. Anyone found in that area is considered hostile. I have not seen anything that would imply that every male in the entire country is considered an enemy combatant.