You reap what you sow? Mass sexual assault in Germany

[Ostroeuropa]

And there we have it people! Civilians massacres are acceptable, collateral damage! Stop whining about your children being blown to bloody chunks of meat! It's your own fault, for not being a "culturally free western nation"!

Oh, and forget about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well, throw it out the windows! Because everyone knows that if you're a citizen of a "backwards and repressive state", your human lives don't count as much as those of the enlightened westerner!
Your lives simply aren't as important as ours, you silly Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalians and Pakistanis. Sorry, that's just our civilised man's prerogative.

Ah, civilisation. The best term to justify barbarity.

why should I care for the life of someone who would have me and my husband hanged or lit on fire?

Because those people are brown basically. They've admitted as much several times that this is why you should care, it's implicit in their accusations.

[Alyakia]

And what makes an American more important than an Iraqi?

nothing, except when it comes to war.

A Iraqi general is going to go above and beyond to ensure Iraqi lives are valued over American ones

its not an american trait.

If im going into battle I care more about my countrymen than them.

this is entirely useless without knowing the context of what's happening. is the iraqi general defending iraq? yeah, of course. is he invading the united states and trying to put down an insurgency? proudly declaring that the occupied populations lives matter less and you're not willing to put yourself in danger to protect them while you also kill their families is a horrible fucking idea.

[Gauthier]

Obviously if Islam was banned and Muslims forced to convert the problems will all magically go away. /s

[North Calaveras]

nothing, except when it comes to war.

A Iraqi general is going to go above and beyond to ensure Iraqi lives are valued over American ones

its not an american trait.

If im going into battle I care more about my countrymen than them.

this is entirely useless without knowing the context of what's happening. is the iraqi general defending iraq? yeah, of course. is he invading the united states and trying to put down an insurgency? proudly declaring that the occupied populations lives matter less and you're not willing to put yourself in danger to protect them while you also kill their families is a horrible fucking idea.

it dosn't matter, countrys always put their own interests first, that's the point.

[Alsheb]

US wars serve the interests of the united states. whether you say decide the economic interests of the united fruit company is more justified than muh islam is up to you.

Winning the cold war was also a justifiable purpose. The opposition to totalitarian ideologies is sufficient justification.

You should be glad that our western governments are more moderate than I am. I would look at the cold war as a precedent justifying the invasion of countries which even have positive relations with islamic theocracies and totalitarian regimes, to install an anti-islamist government.

That would be the equivalent to what you are pointing out here.
They have not done that.
But it could justifiably be done when viewed as part of a larger war.
Collateral nations.

I love it when the masks come falling off and we get to see the true nature of certain people on this forum.
It's shocking, for sure, but it's for the better that all humanitarian sounding nonsense gets removed so we can see the actual inhumanity that drives some people here.

"Collateral nations". Truly one of the most sickening and genocide-excusing phrases I have heard in my life. Beautiful how any half-assed justification of "democracy" or "human rights" is completely absent, and we're left with the naked truth.
Thank you, for clarifying to everyone for once and for all just what sort of person you are.

[Alyakia]

US wars serve the interests of the united states. whether you say decide the economic interests of the united fruit company is more justified than muh islam is up to you.

Winning the cold war was also a justifiable purpose. The opposition to totalitarian ideologies is sufficient justification.

You should be glad that our western governments are more moderate than I am. I would look at the cold war as a precedent justifying the invasion of countries which even have positive relations with islamic theocracies and totalitarian regimes, to install an anti-islamist government.

That would be the equivalent to what you are pointing out here.
They have not done that.
But it could justifiably be done when viewed as part of a larger war.
Collateral nations.

so your plan is to... basically go to war with the entire world, starting with an immediate civil war? good luck there.

[North Calaveras]

Winning the cold war was also a justifiable purpose. The opposition to totalitarian ideologies is sufficient justification.

You should be glad that our western governments are more moderate than I am. I would look at the cold war as a precedent justifying the invasion of countries which even have positive relations with islamic theocracies and totalitarian regimes, to install an anti-islamist government.

That would be the equivalent to what you are pointing out here.
They have not done that.
But it could justifiably be done when viewed as part of a larger war.
Collateral nations.

I love it when the masks come falling off and we get to see the true nature of certain people on this forum.
It's shocking, for sure, but it's for the better that all humanitarian sounding nonsense gets removed so we can see the actual inhumanity that drives some people here.

"Collateral nations". Truly one of the most sickening and genocide-excusing phrases I have heard in my life. Beautiful how any half-assed justification of "democracy" or "human rights" is completely absent, and we're left with the naked truth.
Thank you, for clarifying to everyone for once and for all just what sort of person you are.

Do you support hamas?

[Ostroeuropa]

Winning the cold war was also a justifiable purpose. The opposition to totalitarian ideologies is sufficient justification.

You should be glad that our western governments are more moderate than I am. I would look at the cold war as a precedent justifying the invasion of countries which even have positive relations with islamic theocracies and totalitarian regimes, to install an anti-islamist government.

That would be the equivalent to what you are pointing out here.
They have not done that.
But it could justifiably be done when viewed as part of a larger war.
Collateral nations.

I love it when the masks come falling off and we get to see the true nature of certain people on this forum.
It's shocking, for sure, but it's for the better that all humanitarian sounding nonsense gets removed so we can see the actual inhumanity that drives some people here.

"Collateral nations". Truly one of the most sickening and genocide-excusing phrases I have heard in my life. Beautiful how any half-assed justification of "democracy" or "human rights" is completely absent, and we're left with the naked truth.
Thank you, for clarifying to everyone for once and for all just what sort of person you are.

My record advocating neo-conservative interventions is hardly a secret.

Winning the cold war was also a justifiable purpose. The opposition to totalitarian ideologies is sufficient justification.

You should be glad that our western governments are more moderate than I am. I would look at the cold war as a precedent justifying the invasion of countries which even have positive relations with islamic theocracies and totalitarian regimes, to install an anti-islamist government.

That would be the equivalent to what you are pointing out here.
They have not done that.
But it could justifiably be done when viewed as part of a larger war.
Collateral nations.

so your plan is to... basically go to war with the entire world, starting with an immediate civil war? good luck there.

I said it would be justifiable. I did not say it is what I would do. I'm simply pointing out to you that your post wasn't equivalent, what the real equivalent would be, and why that is also fine.

[Alyakia]

this is entirely useless without knowing the context of what's happening. is the iraqi general defending iraq? yeah, of course. is he invading the united states and trying to put down an insurgency? proudly declaring that the occupied populations lives matter less and you're not willing to put yourself in danger to protect them while you also kill their families is a horrible fucking idea.

it dosn't matter, countrys always put their own interests first, that's the point.

is having a much longer war than you otherwise would have in your interest?

actually now i think about it this is pretty much "why military forces are not good as police forces.txt"

[North Calaveras]

it dosn't matter, countrys always put their own interests first, that's the point.

is having a much longer war than you otherwise would have in your interest?

actually now i think about it this is pretty much "why military forces are not good as police forces.txt"

military forces are not good police forces, I agree with this.

[Vassenor]

I thought the key point of operations planning was to minimise civilian casualties while achieving the objective, not to just write them off as acceptable collateral.

[North Calaveras]

I thought the key point of operations planning was to minimise civilian casualties while achieving the objective, not to just write them off as acceptable collateral.

welcome to the real world

[Valystria]

why should I care for the life of someone who would have me and my husband hanged or lit on fire?

Because those people are brown basically. They've admitted as much several times that this is why you should care, it's implicit in their accusations.

So... racism? Caring about someone for the colour of their skin? That's textbook racism.

[North Calaveras]

Because those people are brown basically. They've admitted as much several times that this is why you should care, it's implicit in their accusations.

So... racism? Caring about someone for the colour of their skin? That's textbook racism.

he was pointing out that others were bringing up racism, it's sort of sarcasm.

[Ostroeuropa]

I thought the key point of operations planning was to minimise civilian casualties while achieving the objective, not to just write them off as acceptable collateral.

The collateral is only acceptable if it is minimal while still securing the objective.
Has this always been the case? Probably not, and reforms there will be necessary to ensure stricter oversight.
However, this would be a case of our actions not aligning with our ideology, rather than our ideologies inherent hostility to civilization.
It would still not make western interventions the moral equivalent of islamism.

[Valystria]

So... racism? Caring about someone for the colour of their skin? That's textbook racism.

he was pointing out that others were bringing up racism, it's sort of sarcasm.

Yes, and Ostro is right about it. Implying we should care about someone for the colour of their skin is racism.

[Vassenor]

I thought the key point of operations planning was to minimise civilian casualties while achieving the objective, not to just write them off as acceptable collateral.

welcome to the real world

You mean the real world where Clinton put the lives of 700 civilians over killing Bin Laden in the late 90s?

[Ostroeuropa]

welcome to the real world

You mean the real world where Clinton put the lives of 700 civilians over killing Bin Laden in the late 90s?

...
You can't possibly be serious about using this example in favor of your position. You DO remember how that worked out, right?

[Kubra]

I thought the key point of operations planning was to minimise civilian casualties while achieving the objective, not to just write them off as acceptable collateral.

in theory, yes. In practice, well counterinsurgency is hell for civilians even when done right, especially so when done poorly.

[North Calaveras]

I thought the key point of operations planning was to minimise civilian casualties while achieving the objective, not to just write them off as acceptable collateral.

in theory, yes. In practice, well counterinsurgency is hell for civilians even when done right, especially so when done poorly.

exactly, these "well meaning" folks don't get it though, war and occupation is nasty.

[Gauthier]

in theory, yes. In practice, well counterinsurgency is hell for civilians even when done right, especially so when done poorly.

exactly, these "well meaning" folks don't get it though, war and occupation is nasty.

But when the other side does it, it's suddenly an outrage.

[North Calaveras]

exactly, these "well meaning" folks don't get it though, war and occupation is nasty.

But when the other side does it, it's suddenly an outrage.

when the other does it as standard operating procedure your damn right it is an outrage. They have no concern for civilians whatsoever.

comparing the west and these people is damn silly.

[Gauthier]

But when the other side does it, it's suddenly an outrage.

when the other does it as standard operating procedure your damn right it is an outrage. They have no concern for civilians whatsoever.

comparing the west and these people is damn silly.

So it's the Intention rather than the End Results that matter eh?

[Ostroeuropa]

when the other does it as standard operating procedure your damn right it is an outrage. They have no concern for civilians whatsoever.

comparing the west and these people is damn silly.

So it's the Intention rather than the End Results that matter eh?

Cop shoots someone because he hates them.
Cop shoots someone because he thinks they are armed.

This is fairly basic stuff here.

[North Calaveras]

So it's the Intention rather than the End Results that matter eh?

Cop shoots someone because he hates them.
Cop shoots someone because he thinks they are armed.

This is fairly basic stuff here.

its extremley basic yes