Thread: All American friends are possible targets

Today I went to a Paki restaurant where I had a lil chit chat with other Pakis who were having lunch there. They are all well educated and up to the western standards that qualify them as human beings! While having lunch someone talked about the statement that a white house spokesman gave a day ago. According to the white house spokesman "US is planning of direct action in tribal areas of Pakistan (NWFP).

I felt good to see them denouncing the fuckwit Mullahs who time and again encourage the general masses to kill the Westerners. One of them said something that really got me thinking. He asked "what would you guys do if one of the American missiles miss the target and land in your house, as it usually does?" For a while there was a pin drop silence but then the silence broke when one of them said "if any of my family members get hurt (forget being killed by those so called precision bombs), all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

Let's put yourself in his shoes, walk a mile and then tell us what would you do in such situation? Should they be targeted (soldiers and civilians)? Who should be held responsible for deaths of Paki civilians, who have got nothing to do with al qaieda, and should Pakis do the same - target American civilians?

Let's see what you lot have got to say on this issue?

Originally Posted by machangezi

"if any of my family members get hurt (forget being killed by those so called precision bombs), all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

Sounds a bit barbaric to me.
A stray projectile isn't "targeting" civilians, and the TEFLer John Smith in Chiang Mai certainly isn't responsible.

Didn't you remind them of the words of the prophet?

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by machangezi

"if any of my family members get hurt (forget being killed by those so called precision bombs), all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

Sounds a bit barbaric to me.
A stray projectile isn't "targeting" civilians, and the TEFLer John Smith in Chiang Mai certainly isn't responsible.

Didn't you remind them of the words of the prophet?

It can't be so often if it's an stray projectile.

Same can be said about innocent people in the tribal areas of Pakistan. They have got nothing to do with American war on terrorism or OBL's jihad against infidels.

*Oh yes and Abdul Ghafoor in Waziristan certainly isn't responsible either*

I think it could be argued that the "Americans" know that their projectiles are not 100% accurate and therefore there will be collateral damage. This for the Americans is an unfortunate side effect of the "War on Terror".

Those civilians who are affected by this have no real way of putting pressure on the Americans to stop killing them, their friends and families. One way of trying to stop the Americans from killing innocent civilians is the targeting of US troops and civilians, these US civilians are just further collateral damage in the "War on Terror".

Is either one any more barbaric that the other?

Originally Posted by machangezi

all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

I would think that a country with people who think like this are a bunch of cnuts.
To indicate that it would be ok to kill an American child or whatever as revenge shows just how little that culture has evolved from cave dwelling.

Originally Posted by Spin

Originally Posted by machangezi

all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

I would think that a country with people who think like this are a bunch of cnuts.
To indicate that it would be ok to kill an American child or whatever as revenge shows just how little that culture has evolved from cave dwelling.

..... and seeing the Merikan fuckwits killing innocents around the world proves what?

Originally Posted by Spin

Originally Posted by machangezi

all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

I would think that a country with people who think like this are a bunch of cnuts.
To indicate that it would be ok to kill an American child or whatever as revenge shows just how little that culture has evolved from cave dwelling.

Cave dwelling? You mean to say that those cave dwellers should start developing sophisticated weapons, like Merikunt precision bombs, and start bombing the shit out of America? Would that justify their actions or would that put them in better position to take revenge the way the US does?

Originally Posted by machangezi

He asked "what would you guys do if one of the American missiles miss the target and land in your house, as it usually does?" For a while there was a pin drop silence but then the silence broke when one of them said "if any of my family members get hurt (forget being killed by those so called precision bombs), all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

Educated,or just plain stupid?

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Originally Posted by machangezi

He asked "what would you guys do if one of the American missiles miss the target and land in your house, as it usually does?" For a while there was a pin drop silence but then the silence broke when one of them said "if any of my family members get hurt (forget being killed by those so called precision bombs), all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

Educated,or just plain stupid?

Educated by the Western standards!

Originally Posted by machangezi

all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

Come and get me. I'm a broke, unworthy, drunk infidel. It's the left turn off Mittrapap just before Home Mart. I'll be waiting.

Originally Posted by ADare

Is either one any more barbaric that the other?

For sure, one is accepting that there will be unintended "collateral damage", which is a questionable attitude, a reason some oppose all war, the other is the intentional seeking out of innocents to kill for reasons of revenge.

I am surprised this is even raised as a question.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by ADare

Is either one any more barbaric that the other?

For sure, one is accepting that there will be unintended "collateral damage", which is a questionable attitude, a reason some oppose all war, the other is the intentional seeking out of innocents to kill for reasons of revenge.

I am surprised this is even raised as a question.

I was not thinking of revenge, I was thinking that this would be the only way for these people to get the US to stop the bombing and thus the colateral damage.

If it was done only for revenge, then this would be more barbaric.

If it was done with a purpose to stop the collateral damage, then the damage they do, is just further collateral damage in the "War on Terror".

Originally Posted by machangezi

Let's see what you lot have got to say on this issue?

I think I would feel the same way as the people in the restaurant, Macha.

If the Pakistani military (for example, or any other nation's military) bombed my families house and killed my familiy, even by accident, I would probably hold hatred, or at least the urge for revenge.

How I would enact revenge, if at all, I don't know.

I'd probably target someone in the military, or their family.


(Right now this is hypothetical of course.)

Sorry Milky I don't get your point. Do you mean to say that when Americans kill innocents it's a collateral damage and when Americans are killed it's murder??

Originally Posted by machangezi

Sorry Milky I don't get your point. Do you mean to say that when Americans kill innocents it's a collateral damage and when Americans are killed it's murder??

No, not at all.

My post was unclear. My bad.

By the US trying to play it to ways I mean:

The US kills civilians all of the time. Not just by accident but by simply saying, "oh well, that's collateral damage, sorry."

But when a military person, contractor, or Foreign service person is killed, they call this American a "victim."

But the people the Americans kill are not "victims."

This is a concept called "Worthy vs. Unworthy" victims.

The U.S. media makes lots of reports, that tug at people's emotion about the poor American (usually military) that gets killed. They interview his family with moist eyes, talking about how he "really liked helping people," and then sometimes even interview his old high school teacher, who might a political comment: "he had to fight them on their soil, or they'd come to America and attack us."


Worth and Unworthy Victims come from Naom Chomsky in his book Manufacturing Consent.

^Something like this, I think.

It's the nature of warfare, and the associated propaganda justifies one's own nation's actions and condemns most of what the "enemy" does.

That's why war is considered a last resort by many, not a means to an end.

Coming back to the OP, I agree with MM's first comment, I certainly would feel extremely angry if one of my family was killed by a stray bomb, but it is doubtful I'd take violent action, and killing some random associates of whoever may be responsible is entirely out of the question.

Doing so for revenge is a crime, doing so for political ends, as in ending the war, is terrorism.
Stick to soldiers and officials, who make decisions and actively participate out of their free will, or associated military targets. If you must.

Originally Posted by stroller

Doing so for revenge is a crime, doing so for political ends, as in ending the war, is terrorism. Stick to soldiers and officials, who make decisions and actively participate out of their free will, or associated military targets. If you must.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Originally Posted by ADare

Originally Posted by stroller

Doing so for revenge is a crime, doing so for political ends, as in ending the war, is terrorism. Stick to soldiers and officials, who make decisions and actively participate out of their free will, or associated military targets. If you must.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Spot on bro but those Talibans or freedom fighters in Iraq ain't our heros. Hezbollah fighters are what I might, still not sure as I don't know a lot about them, consider as heroes.

Time to look at the definition of terrorism, again, it's been inconclusive every time 'we' (in Issues) have attempted to.

Can someone tell me what I should have done with my life, short of renouncing my US citizenship, to avoid being a legitimate target of terrorists?

Originally Posted by buad hai

to avoid being a legitimate target of terrorists?

No,no, not "terrorists", just pissed-off guys who want to revenge relatives' death and think the US will withdraw their troops if they torture you to death!