Talk:U.S. senators defend Pakistan missile strike that killed 18

Possible NPOV?
I think this is a little harsh..."Meanwhile the killings prompted demonstrations..." Killings? I that sounds a bit too disgruntled. I will leave it in for now. Someone else might think NPOV...its borderline in my opinion. Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin


 * I think "killings" is appropriate; that's exactly what it was. It's certainly far more neutral than when we refer to it as "terrorism" when the other side kills 18 bystanders, then just says "oh well, it was for a good cause."
 * I think Killings is far too harsh..should say: "Meanwhile the airstrike prompted demonstrations..." or something like that. I just do not think that its a right choice of words to say killings. Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * But the airstrike is not what prompted demonstrations; it was the killing of 18 innocent people, as well as the "oh well" response the US Senate has taken. I disagree with the trend in most "western" news media to make antiseptic any news of what the US military does. People pressed buttons based on information from an agency that has repeatedly provided bad information, which has repeatedly led to the deaths of lots of innocent people; these pressed buttons launched munitions which killed 18 people. And, of course, the intelligence was wrong. This is not any less a killing simply because the people doing so were wearing matching uniforms and following orders.
 * How do you know all of them were innocent? As far as reporting goes no OFFICIALS have said that all of the dead were children, women or innocent for that matter. But I still think Killing is too harsh a word. We are reporting., not giving an opinion. Killing is a matter of opinion depending on who you talk to. Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Sorry again, but how is killing an expression of opinion? --Deprifry|+T+ 15:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My criteria for "innocent" in this case is "not the intended target, but rather just a bunch of people standing there." Chances are each and every one of them was guilty of some crime, by some moral or legal standard, as is the case with every human being. However, their "innocence" -- which, I agree, is not a neutral topic -- is irrelevant to what happened, which is quite simply: they were killed. They did not merely die. A deliberate, organized, concerted effort to kill them was made. That the attack originated from so far away that nobody knew who they were really killing, does not change the fact that a violent act was made against them, which killed them. I'm afraid I must disagree on a fundamental level; I think "killing" is the only neutral way to describe what happens when someone (or an organized group of someones) uses weapons to terminate the existences of other people.


 * "killing", or "killed" as it is in the title isn't really a POV term. DragonFire1024, I think your run-in with Neutralizer and a couple of his friends has made you a little up-tight about what is and isn't neutral.  The article is okay at the moment, but I did see the trouble you had with the other one. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean the trouble STILL going on... Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Edit
editprotected Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Ali Rana (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)