ace wrote:crait wrote:ace wrote:Innocent people should never be murdered. Whenever we invaded an innocent country, we caused these people to be put into this situation. 100% is more than 90%.
Go to CNN. I bet 24/7, no matter when you go, one of the top articles are talking about innocent people dying in Iraq. Oh, sorry. Not all the time. Not when Tiger Woods or someone is cheating on his wife.
I do not support murder.
I'm not sure how that remotely answered my question, but whatever. I went and visited cnn's site real quick and the only thing I saw without looking very hard was this:
http://insidethemiddleeast.blogs.cnn.co ... day-after/AQ attacking their own civilians, thats why I'm asking what proof do you have that we killed all these civilians? Or are you just guessing because someone told you that? Of course I think civilians dying during a war sucks, but it's war what do you expect? You can't win a war by not supporting murder.
Btw when I said "they" everytime I meant "terrorists".
I understand that you're talking about terrorists and not Iraqis.
There are a lot of Iraqis that are killed by terrorists and the US, alike. So, when you state, "You can't win a war," I've got to say back that I don't think we should even have a war! Winning is not something that I care about. It's never a winning war whenever this many civilians lose their life.
I don't want to say, "Yes! We won the war in Iraq! Now, only a forth of their population remains!"
That's unrealistic and definitely not a win for us.
Now, the link that I'm going to send you may shock you. I'm glad that you understand that this is a war on terrorism, and not on Iraq.
"January 13, 2006: Damadola airstrike kills
18 civilians in Bajaur area but misses Ayman al-Zawahri."
"October 30, 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahridestroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills
70-80 civilians."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_PakistanWe've been attacking people in Pakistan, and killing a lot of people who do not deserve to die.
The latest one posted was November. It's sad that we kill so many people like this, and think how many of these people that we're targetting and not reporting because of the secrecy involved.
I'm surprised your brought up that link. I thought you would post this:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/1 ... l?hpt=SbinDoesn't say who was killed but does say that civillians were involved and it also states that the Taliban leaders tell their troops to "avoid civilian casualties."
Yea I just picked a random link looking through the news articles. Although I'm sure you would care about "winning the war" if they bombed a church that all of your family members attended. But civilian causalities caused by both sides happens in every war, and there will always be war. I'd feel a little better about it though if we were actually defending ourselves instead of just going out and looking for high value targets. But at the same time you made it sound like all of those civilian deaths were caused by us, which I just don't feel to be true.
I'm curious though, do you not agree with the US's involvement in WWII?[/quote]
"I'm curious though, do you not agree with the US's involvement in WWII?" However late the involvement of the USA, without them many nations wouldof fell resulting in britian evenutally *read up on your history hitler left us alone after we raped his aircraft yea, damn straight we rule the skys b**ch!*
but as i allways give a direct point: Crait your not giving a good example of a mod are you? flaming insluting and even DEAR GOD NOOO.... DOUBLE POSTING holy S**T!
but seriously calm the fudge down. in war there shall allways be casualties, saying we (being america ofcourse soz but i don't know exactly the british involvement) killed 100% of civilizions is a ridiculous acusation, basicly saying no one takes drugs, no one are mass murders, rapists and mentalists, please shush.
im out probs gonna post again in about 8 months lol.