jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (11 posts)

2379 people killed in Pakistan, 704 were Al-Qaeda related

  1. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    What does it mean? That the war on terrorism is directed towards civilians?

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Presumably 1675 were killed by al Qaeda, which would mean 100% were terrorism connected.  Other than that, I do NOT believe that collateral damage was 3X the effective kill rate, not with our smart weapons, which means the data is incorrect of insufficient.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image79
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "presumably", is your source the servile jingoist's or the conspiracy theorist's? Because it makes the whole difference.
        And, again, the appreciation of the data comes from a specialist.
        A million people were killed in Iraq thanks to our mercenaries and their sophisticated weaponry does it fit your frame of contingency or not ?

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Why did I know that eventually it would come down to "America either killed them or paid someone to kill them"?  It always does, doesn't it?

          Side note - did you know that our soldiers from Iraq are now coming down with diseases and damage from chemical weapons?  The weapons that didn't exist there?  Or did we herd them into a closed room and gas it ourselves?

          1. maxoxam41 profile image79
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I will answer your question by another question. Who is in Afghanistan? Who is Iraq? Who is training ISIS? Who trained the Nicaraguayan National Guard, the death squads in El Salvador...?

            Another side note, did you know that Blackwater was paid $750 million for a 3 years contract? The only chemical weapons that were there were ours.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I see.  We took the gas over there, buried it in the ground to rot for years and then instructed our soldiers to dig it back up.  Got it.

              1. maxoxam41 profile image79
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Honestly I don't even know what you are talking about? A commission was sent there and nothing was found.
                I was referring to the use of radioactive weaponry and probably gas too in our attacks over Iraq. It wasn't the first time that we consciously harmed soldiers. Our history speaks for itself.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "Probably gas"?  From where do you get this opinion?  Because America is intrinsically evil? 

                  We gave soldiers X-rays as necessary, too - does that exposure to radiation make the country evil, too?  We irradiate them with radiation from radar and radio waves, too.  The point is that the radioactivity from uranium bullets is not that high, and not of much concern.  They are dense and hard - a valid tradeoff as they kill more enemies trying to kill our soldiers.

                  A big article in my local paper indicates that our soldiers DID find WMD's in Iraq, and are coming down with injuries/illness from them now.  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014 … .html?_r=0

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image79
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It is factual that since our invasions of Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq radioactivity is omnipresent there. It is factual also that the radioactivity concentration had affected the rate of birth defects. If soldiers are sick, it is because of our weapons not theirs.
                    Who would not defend their country? What will you do if suddenly the French army invaded the US, would you watch passively or would you act accordingly?

 
working