List of children killed by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The list just goes to show that the Islamic militants should stop hiding behind women and children. As long as they continue to do so for propaganda purposes ("see how the infidel kills children"), they'll keep hinding behind burkas and children.
Freewills solution: Nothing. Just let the militants keep killing others, then hide behind burkas and children.
I agree with Rocko on this: Collateral damage.

You mean the people Obama labels terrorists because he happened to kill them? Those terrorists?

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Yeah. Those people. And for the record, Obama didn't label anyone. Good old Bubba Bush got us into those countries and labelled them "insurgents". Obama just inherited the mess, or are you re-writing history now? As for us still being there, we still needed boots on the ground to deal with Al Qaeda and its leaders to go after their hiding places, which by the way, we are actively attacking through ground and air actions.

 

[The Rabbi]

List of children killed by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen « Drones Watch

Of course this only lists those killed in Pakistan and Yemen, but I doubt it's even exhaustive in that limited sense.

Does the fact that these children died as a resulted of a deliberate state action, as opposed to the impulsive violence of a madman, make it better? Or worse?

Maybe if Obama didn't set such a bad example people wouldn't think killing children was ok in the first place.

Do you know anyone who thinks killing children is OK? I mean, other than the muslim terrorists our attacks are targeting.

 

[Sunni Man]

Do you know anyone who thinks killing children is OK? I mean, other than the muslim terrorists our attacks are targeting.

The Israeli IDF soldiers think murdering arab children is absolutely OK and do it on a regular basis...........

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you know anyone who thinks killing children is OK? I mean, other than the muslim terrorists our attacks are targeting.

The Israeli IDF soldiers think murdering arab children is absolutely OK and do it on a regular basis...........

Proof? Nah.
OTOH there are plenty of pics of bus bombings by Arab Muslim pigs that killed lots of innocents, as intended.

 

[dblack]

Does the fact that these children died as a resulted of a deliberate state action, as opposed to the impulsive violence of a madman, make it better? Or worse?

Maybe if Obama didn't set such a bad example people wouldn't think killing children was ok in the first place.

Do you know anyone who thinks killing children is OK? I mean, other than the muslim terrorists our attacks are targeting.

No. But there are plenty who think it's necessary for reasons that are amoral at best, and are willing to excuse it as collateral damage toward a "greater" cause. The question is, is it really necessary to dominate the world militarily? Can we defend ourselves and live peacefully? Is it necessary to project our power to the furthest corners of the globe with overt and ubiquitous threat of violence? It seems we may have found a functional limit on how much power military dominance affords a nation.

To be clear - I'm not opposed to a strong military, I want the strongest deterrent we can afford. But I want a military that protects the homeland first and foremost, and avoids indulging mercantilism for the elite.

 

[tjvh]

Yeah. Those people. And for the record, Obama didn't label anyone. Good old Bubba Bush got us into those countries and labelled them "insurgents". Obama just inherited the mess, or are you re-writing history now? As for us still being there, we still needed boots on the ground to deal with Al Qaeda and its leaders to go after their hiding places, which by the way, we are actively attacking through ground and air actions.

Bush got us into Pakistan, and Yemen. Got it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Maybe if Obama didn't set such a bad example people wouldn't think killing children was ok in the first place.

Do you know anyone who thinks killing children is OK? I mean, other than the muslim terrorists our attacks are targeting.

No. But there are plenty who think it's necessary for reasons that are amoral at best, and are willing to excuse it as collateral damage toward a "greater" cause. The question is, is it really necessary to dominate the world militarily? Can we defend ourselves and live peacefully? Is it necessary to project our power to the furthest corners of the globe with overt and ubiquitous threat of violence? It seems we may have found a functional limit on how much power military dominance affords a nation.

To be clear - I'm not opposed to a strong military, I want the strongest deterrent we can afford. But I want a military that protects the homeland first and foremost, and avoids indulging mercantilism for the elite.

It means something to be a super power. It means being able to project power over the globe. There are many advantages to that, not just for the U.S. either. Many places would long ago have destabilized into civil war if we weren't around.
Collateral damage happens in war. If terrorists hide among children then children are going to get killed. Why aren't you blaming the population that allows terrorists in their midsts, leading to the loss of children's lives?
You are simply the flip side of Obama's blame America first policies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah. Those people. And for the record, Obama didn't label anyone. Good old Bubba Bush got us into those countries and labelled them "insurgents". Obama just inherited the mess, or are you re-writing history now? As for us still being there, we still needed boots on the ground to deal with Al Qaeda and its leaders to go after their hiding places, which by the way, we are actively attacking through ground and air actions.

So it's Bush's fault that Obama is continuing all of his policies, and expanding upon them? So really, Bush should get the credit for getting Osama.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Does the fact that these children died as a resulted of a deliberate state action, as opposed to the impulsive violence of a madman, make it better? Or worse?

Maybe if Obama didn't set such a bad example people wouldn't think killing children was ok in the first place.

Do you know anyone who thinks killing children is OK? I mean, other than the muslim terrorists our attacks are targeting.

Adam Lanza didn't seem to think it was a big deal. And the people in this thread calling it "collateral damage" apparently aren't too fussed about it either.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do you know anyone who thinks killing children is OK? I mean, other than the muslim terrorists our attacks are targeting.

No. But there are plenty who think it's necessary for reasons that are amoral at best, and are willing to excuse it as collateral damage toward a "greater" cause. The question is, is it really necessary to dominate the world militarily? Can we defend ourselves and live peacefully? Is it necessary to project our power to the furthest corners of the globe with overt and ubiquitous threat of violence? It seems we may have found a functional limit on how much power military dominance affords a nation.

To be clear - I'm not opposed to a strong military, I want the strongest deterrent we can afford. But I want a military that protects the homeland first and foremost, and avoids indulging mercantilism for the elite.

It means something to be a super power. It means being able to project power over the globe. There are many advantages to that, not just for the U.S. either. Many places would long ago have destabilized into civil war if we weren't around.
Collateral damage happens in war. If terrorists hide among children then children are going to get killed. Why aren't you blaming the population that allows terrorists in their midsts, leading to the loss of children's lives?
You are simply the flip side of Obama's blame America first policies.

Why do you parrot the term "terrorist" when you know Obama has redefined the term to mean any military age male within a strike zone? In other words, a terrorist is any adult man Obama's drones happen to kill, which doesn't actually make them a terrorist. Except in the government's Newspeak.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. But there are plenty who think it's necessary for reasons that are amoral at best, and are willing to excuse it as collateral damage toward a "greater" cause. The question is, is it really necessary to dominate the world militarily? Can we defend ourselves and live peacefully? Is it necessary to project our power to the furthest corners of the globe with overt and ubiquitous threat of violence? It seems we may have found a functional limit on how much power military dominance affords a nation.

To be clear - I'm not opposed to a strong military, I want the strongest deterrent we can afford. But I want a military that protects the homeland first and foremost, and avoids indulging mercantilism for the elite.

It means something to be a super power. It means being able to project power over the globe. There are many advantages to that, not just for the U.S. either. Many places would long ago have destabilized into civil war if we weren't around.
Collateral damage happens in war. If terrorists hide among children then children are going to get killed. Why aren't you blaming the population that allows terrorists in their midsts, leading to the loss of children's lives?
You are simply the flip side of Obama's blame America first policies.

Why do you parrot the term "terrorist" when you know Obama has redefined the term to mean any military age male within a strike zone? In other words, a terrorist is any adult man Obama's drones happen to kill, which doesn't actually make them a terrorist. Except in the government's Newspeak.

When you're ready to have a serious discussion let me know.

 

[Rocko]

Collateral damage. War isn't pretty.

Unless they were Americans. In which case the perpetrators would be evil terrorists.

It's not our fault terrorists break the Geneva convention laws by hiding among civilian children.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Collateral damage. War isn't pretty.

Unless they were Americans. In which case the perpetrators would be evil terrorists.

It's not our fault terrorists break the Geneva convention laws by hiding among civilian children.

So why don't police spray into crowds to get suspects? Well, why aren't they supposed to, at any rate.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Do you know anyone who thinks killing children is OK? I mean, other than the muslim terrorists our attacks are targeting.

The Israeli IDF soldiers think murdering arab children is absolutely OK and do it on a regular basis...........

Proof? Nah.
OTOH there are plenty of pics of bus bombings by Arab Muslim pigs that killed lots of innocents, as intended.

Operation Cast Lead | Amnesty International

amnesty cast lead you tube video - Bing Videos

http://www.universaljurisdiction.org/world/israelpalestine/473-reports-gaza-waroperation-cast-lead


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2DDrVl-x1Dg#[/ame]

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Collateral damage. War isn't pretty.

Unless they were Americans. In which case the perpetrators would be evil terrorists.

It's not our fault terrorists break the Geneva convention laws by hiding among civilian children.

Anytime we target a civilian it is a war crime by the one targeting them, nothing justifies or excuses or makes it lawful, the targeting of civilians and civilian objects. They are war crimes under The Fourth Geneva Convention.

Why do you support war crimes?

 

[irosie91]

Unless they were Americans. In which case the perpetrators would be evil terrorists.

It's not our fault terrorists break the Geneva convention laws by hiding among civilian children.

Anytime we target a civilian it is a war crime by the one targeting them, nothing justifies or excuses or makes it lawful, the targeting of civilians and civilian objects. They are war crimes under The Fourth Geneva Convention.

Why do you support war crimes?

Sherri lies again in her support of terrorism and the murder of people of
all ages and both genders. The killing of a DANGEROUS CRIMINAL
is not a "war crime" According to sherri the killing of all those who
asses she licks -----to wit from Adolf Hitler to Osama bin Laden is a
"WAR CRIME" for the simple reason that she loves them. Drones
in Yemen used to kill those murderers of children whose asses she licks
are legal in that they involve the killing of dangerous criminals despite her love
for baby throat slitters

 

[PredFan]

PAKISTAN
Name | Age | Gender
Noor Aziz | 8 | male
Abdul Wasit | 17 | male
Noor Syed | 8 | male
Wajid Noor | 9 | male
Syed Wali Shah | 7 | male
Ayeesha | 3 | female
Qari Alamzeb | 14| male
Shoaib | 8 | male
Hayatullah KhaMohammad | 16 | male
Tariq Aziz | 16 | male
Sanaullah Jan | 17 | male
Maezol Khan | 8 | female
Nasir Khan | male
Naeem Khan | male
Naeemullah | male
Mohammad Tahir | 16 | male
Azizul Wahab | 15 | male
...

Of course this only lists those killed in Pakistan and Yemen, but I doubt it's even exhaustive in that limited sense.

Everyone of these children has brothers, cousins, uncles, and a father.

And yet we can't seem to figure out why Al Qaeda and other radical groups keep growing.........

Because we aren't killing them fast enough.

 

[mememe]

Forget Pakistan and Yemen!

According to a new CIA director, US now has a right to kill (by drones) anyone SUSPECTED of ANTI_AMERICAN activities irrespective of person's citizenship of location.

In other words, US officials of any level as well as CIA can order a murder in any country, including US; and no proof of "terrorist activities" of the victim is needed. Also, the decision can not be legally challenged!

Beautiful, isn't it?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Forget Pakistan and Yemen!

According to a new CIA director, US now has a right to kill (by drones) anyone SUSPECTED of ANTI_AMERICAN activities irrespective of person's citizenship of location.

In other words, US officials of any level as well as CIA can order a murder in any country, including US; and no proof of "terrorist activities" of the victim is needed. Also, the decision can not be legally challenged!

Beautiful, isn't it?

It's sick I know. There's something behind it, I really wonder sometimes if the CIA is that bloodthirsty.