boyfriday Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 i wonder what the fallout would be if this was the other way round:roll: What, if a Pakistani drone killed 13 wedding guests in the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Name a single act of aggression by the west that explicitly targeted Muslims that outnumbers the dead that resulted from the World Trade Centre attack? The Muslim world is lucky the USA didn't carpet bomb you all back to the middle ages. You're lucky the USA needed oil, but that addiction has only a small amount of time left. How do you think things will pan out when the west no longer needs the likes of Saudi Arabia? ---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 21:18 ---------- Do western forces target civilians as a matter of policy? Again this ludicrous quibbling over death tolls and who killed whom. Surely you can deplore violence regardless of who perpetrates it? Are the wedding guests blown to pieces in Yemen any less dead the WTC dead? Will their friends and families grief be any less? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Do western forces target civilians as a matter of policy? I think you're missing the OP's point Wex, to the victims and their families it makes no difference whether they were targeted accidentally or deliberately, as far as they're concerned foreign forces have no business raining bombs down on their lands. One doesn't have to be sympathetic to that point of view to understand why it might motivate extremists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 What, if a Pakistani drone killed 13 wedding guests in the UK? i wondered how long you would be along trying to turn it (again) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 I think you're missing the OP's point Wex, to the victims and their families it makes no difference whether they were targeted accidentally or deliberately, as far as they're concerned foreign forces have no business raining bombs down on their lands. One doesn't have to be sympathetic to that point of view to understand why it might motivate extremists. Oh certainly, one death to those close is going to be unthinkable for them and I can perfectly understand and we should always strive to prevent accidents like this from happening in the future. Im sure there are countless examples of orders to fire being belayed due to remote possibilities the target is not safe. My point was and is, if this was an attack by Muslims against the west, this would be seen by some as a good result, while the reverse shows we in the west do not see civilians are targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 i wondered how long you would be along trying to turn it (again) I asked a simple question for clarification since the thread's about a bomb killing wedding guests in the Yemen, the converse would be a Pakistani bomb killing wedding guests in the UK, I certainly wasn't trying to turn it into a discussion about Lee Rigby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Have you people nothing better to do ? We all know where this will go before it's locked so what's the point ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Again this ludicrous quibbling over death tolls and who killed whom. Surely you can deplore violence regardless of who perpetrates it? Are the wedding guests blown to pieces in Yemen any less dead the WTC dead? Will their friends and families grief be any less? I think you miss the point. Im highlight the fact someone can always come back with a bigger number or a worse situation if you have no frame of reference. However, the sheer volume of death felt is significant. What is worse, one death or two? Obviously two losses of life is worse as the suffering is multiplied by the number dead. On a personal level its insignificant, but over all, the more dead, the more suffering resulting in a greater loss. ---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 21:42 ---------- The soldiers head was hacked off in retaliation for the wests acts of terrorism. I noticed after a quick search that you are present on many Muslim threads but you never seem to condemn muslim attacks on the west. You only voice an opinion when its the west against the Muslims. You seem to down play Muslim aggression. Do you intentionally try to be an apologist for these kinds of terrorists? If I am wrong, please highlight an example (you can PM it to me if you like) and I will remove this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 My point was and is, if this was an attack by Muslims against the west, this would be seen by some as a good result, while the reverse shows we in the west do not see civilians are targets. Conversely they'd argue we have bigger guns and the means to indiscriminately decimate huge areas of their country from the comfort of a desk in Nebraska. As Halibut said there's no virtue in what either side claims, this isn't a noble conflict..and Im sure if you'd been the father of a dead bride you'd be spitting hatred at the regime that caused it, in fact those unconnected with the wedding party will feel the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 What, if a Pakistani drone killed 13 wedding guests in the UK? I'm sure you'd come up with an excuse for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.