Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/1...&utm_term=news
May want to come up with a more reliable source; the one provided by Wikipedia is sorely lacking in providing anything assertive. There's nothing like going by the word of a small, biased group that chose a small and highly selective sample size to pull from.
"Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, a U.S.-based human rights group, said in a report this week that unnamed U.S. officials had put civilian deaths from drone strikes at 20 to 30 since the beginning of last year. Yet CIVIC's own small sample of nine strikes uncovered 30 civilian deaths, including at least 14 women and children."
http://www.brookings.edu/research/op...killings-bymanAt the other extreme, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution suggests that drone strikes may kill "10 or so civilians" for every militant killed, which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1.
Tagged at the very top of the page as an opinion article. Even if it was by an educated professor, it is essentially a blogged rant and nothin more.
Also, "At the other extreme".. extremes are never the best to go off of.
Going to the talk page, and...And finally, This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed statements are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (July 2011).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...casualty_ratio
"The result was keep - not a strong consensus, but I see one growing towards that."
(the contention for the article was based on its connection to how civilian casualty ratios are done)
Last edited by Kasierith; 2013-04-24 at 06:11 PM.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
But soon after Mr Xi secured a third term, Apple released a new version of the feature in China, limiting its scope. Now Chinese users of iPhones and other Apple devices are restricted to a 10-minute window when receiving files from people who are not listed as a contact. After 10 minutes, users can only receive files from contacts.
Apple did not explain why the update was first introduced in China, but over the years, the tech giant has been criticised for appeasing Beijing.
Because they are embodiment of innocence, the most pure of all humans.
Also " A fierce battle between U.S.-backed Afghan forces and Taliban militants in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan left nearly 20 people dead, including 11 Afghan children killed in an airstrike and an American civilian adviser, officials said Sunday." Satisfied?
This guy has basically summed it up, it's so obvious, NOONE WANTS this to happen, but what is the alternative? If I could stutter in writing I would be, it's just inevitable, i'm not even going to begin to say whether it's justified, it's a massive shame.
But I DO also agree with an earlier post that said that this is how terrorists breed, I imagine a few of them are only "signing up" because their family (civilians) were caught in a crossfire, again, not that that's justified but i'd be surely pissed too.
the problem is a "damned if we do damned if we dont" kind of thing. ideally, these countries would be vigilant on anti terrorism to the point where we wouldnt feel the need to engage in it. but right now it's either fight them there or fight them here. if there are going to be fatalities any nation or govt would prefer they were somebody else's instead of their own.
i respect you n7, and i would hope you have enough respect for me to believe that im not in the "fuck 'em" crowd, i hate that this happens. but i cant see any other entity behaving differently under the same circumstances
A question for you folks, what is more important to you people, killing this Al-Qaeda leader ASAP or ensuring that no civilians die?
If it was the later, then how can you accept an attack on the house when the NATO could have waited few hours and attacked him when he was out of the house?
---------- Post added 2013-04-24 at 07:21 PM ----------
Because they went there, also by now I'd assume that the NATO know that Al-Qaeda militants breed a lot and most of the time children would be involved if it was an attack at his residence.
Part 1
A little of both. There are going to be civilians that are going to die in a war. As long as we aren't just killing them for the hell of it i'm ok with that.
Part 2
So now they all have a free get out of jail card. All they need to do is keep little kids around them and we can never touch them.
I am not saying that they shouldn't engage, I am saying that they should have been more tactful about it. A house is not an ideal place to initiate an operation, let alone an air strike, they could've waited until he moved out of the house. Being the NATO, I'd assume that they would have some kind of surveillance.
Also, don't think that my anger and sadness towards these kinds of deaths would result in me hating you or other people. I try to act respectfully most of the time and I mutually respect to you smelltheglove (funny name by the way).