Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 21 of 175 (621457)
06-26-2011 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
06-25-2011 5:57 AM


Suicide truck bomber targets Afghan hospital, kills 30
Well it's better that than "Al Qaeda jet fighter bombs hospital killing 1000's."
And the US is NOT excluded from killing civilians, like this: US hits wrong target and kills people, including a mother and father and at least two toddlers -- whether you tried to hit civilians or not, in the end, people are still dead.
What does Al Qaeda want from us? Why are these people under such enormous social and cultural pressure to fight us?
There are only 100 members of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. There are always going to be 100 people anywhere -- (including in the US) -- willing too fight us. I don't think they want anything at this point other than to just fight the US.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 06-25-2011 5:57 AM Phat has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 51 of 175 (621607)
06-27-2011 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Phat
06-26-2011 11:28 PM


Re: Sense Of Duty
could you see our young people getting a renaissance interest in becoming Christian "soldiers" to save our nation from being overwhelmed economically and culturally from other beliefs?
Where have you been, Phat? The KKK is exactly that, so are militia groups, and they've been active for a long while in the US.
Militia groups are actively trying to do what Al Qaeda is doing. Oklahoma City bombing was a militia group. They both have the same agenda.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 06-26-2011 11:28 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 83 of 175 (621718)
06-28-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dogmafood
06-27-2011 9:29 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
In the real world, who conducts their wars with a higher regard for human rights and civilian casualties?
WTF? We're always at war!
How can we have ANY regard for human rights when we invade two countries FOR war?
Have you read any of the Wikileaks on the US lies about civilian casualties?
Wikileaks lifts lid on official lies about civilian deaths in Afghanistan
quote:
Today’s publication in the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel of leaked US military documents — over 90,000 reports — relating to Afghanistan have raised anger in the US government who have accused Wikileaks of putting the lives of US army personnel at risk.
The leaked documents reveal details of numerous incidents of Afghan civilians being killed that went unreported at the time including killings by UK forces.
More here:
Afghanistan leak exposes NATO's incoherent civilian casualty policy
Urgent investigation needed into civilian deaths in Afghanistan
And lets not forget our history! Hiroshima? Nagasaki?
What's that yummy number of human civilian casualty?
The fact that anyone can, in good conscience, suggest that the US has a higher regard for human rights and civilian casualties, just shows what a great job is done to mold the opinion of US citizens through news and media outlets.
Just because we are not perfect doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that the enemy is worse by magnitudes.
Really? Ok, lets look at the numbers:
quote:
Civilian casualties (2001-2003)
According to Marc W. Herold's extensive database, Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing, between 3,100 and 3,600 civilians were directly killed by U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom bombing and Special Forces attacks between October 7, 2001 and June 3, 2003.
Civilian and overall casualties (2005)
An estimated 1,700 people were killed in 2005 according to an Associated Press count, including civilians, insurgents and security forces members. Some 600 policemen were killed between Hamid Karzai's election as president of Afghanistan in early December 2004 and mid-May 2005.
Civilian and overall casualties (2006)
A report by Human Rights Watch said that 4,400 Afghans had been killed in 2006, more than 1,000 of them civilians. Some 2,077 militants were killed in Coalition operations between September 1 and December 13.
Civilian and overall casualties (2007)
More than 7,700 people were killed in 2007, including: 1,019 Afghan policemen; 4,478 militants; 1,980 civilians and 232 foreign soldiers.
Civilian and overall casualties (2008)
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that 2,118 civilians were killed as a result of armed conflict in Afghanistan in 2008, the highest civilian death toll since the end of the initial 2001 invasion.
Civilian and overall casualties (2009)
2009 was again the most lethal year for Afghan civilians in the American-led war since the fall of the Taliban government in late 2001. According to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), 2,412 civilians were killed by the war in 2009, a jump of 14% over the number that lost their lives in 2008. An additional 3,566 Afghan civilians were wounded as a result of the war in 2009.
3600
1700
1000
1980
2118
2412
------
total = 12810
Compare that to 19 hijackers not even from Afghanistan killing 3,000 people.
So, 19 hijackers kill 3,000 civilians, and we retaliate by killing 12,810 civilians in Afghanistan -- and that you consider a high regard for human rights and civilian casualties?
I'm actually shocked the you got hoooah to agree.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dogmafood, posted 06-27-2011 9:29 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by hooah212002, posted 06-28-2011 2:27 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 89 by Nuggin, posted 06-28-2011 11:52 PM onifre has replied
 Message 92 by Dogmafood, posted 06-29-2011 12:26 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 94 of 175 (621793)
06-29-2011 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Nuggin
06-28-2011 11:52 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
Remember, they were swearing total war.
This seems to be an on-going theme in this thread - the "they" factor.
The Japanese civilians made no such threat.
Those two bombs put an end to a war that could have dragged on almost as long as it has taken us to effect no real change in Iraq
Yea, and if we abort every black and hispanic child in the US you would greatly reduce crime. But the end doesn't justify the means, in that case, or in the case of those two bombs.
And certainly it could never be said that the US has a high concern for human rights or civilian casualties, without even bringing up Iraq or Afghanistan.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Nuggin, posted 06-28-2011 11:52 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 1:43 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 95 of 175 (621796)
06-29-2011 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Dogmafood
06-29-2011 12:26 AM


Re: Perspective
Your own links point out that the Taliban are killing more civilians than anyone else.
No it doesn't. It says the Taliban are responsible for the most human rights violation. But then it goes on to say that that doesn't excuse NATO forces from their responsibility - which is mainly, to concern themselves with the human rights violations, which they have not done.
Our main purpose over there, stated by Bush AND Obama, is to protect the civilians of Afghanistan.
I am not some group ‘W’ bench candidate straining at the leash and calling for blood. 56 countries have taken part in the Afghan war.
Slight correction, because it makes a difference: It's the war in Afghanistan, NOT the Afghan war. We are not at war with Afghanistan, just as we are not at war with Iraq. We invaded Afghanistan to engage in a "war" with a group that had less members in it than NAMBLA.
There was a fair chunk of the world that agreed that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do in response to 9/11.
And they were wrong as well.
What evidence supports invading Afghanistan? What evidence is there linking the hijackers to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? In fact, what evidence is there that Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attacks? Was there ever a trial? Was there ever a case presented with evidence in an International court? No, we were just told he was, a grainy video was shown and that was that. He's guilty without a trail and killed so he can never have a trial.
I wonder how the world would react if Iraqi forces came into our country a shot Bush for the civilian blood on his hands that far out number that of Bin Laden?
You know that there could have been as many as 40,000 people in the WTC that day. We have been in Afghanistan for 10 yrs., so yeah, I do. While we sure could do better I think that a lot of folks seem to forget that we are the good guys.
I'm not trying to play down the attacks. Fuck 40,000, there were 3,000 and that's enough to be horrifying. But the fact is that Afghanistan, and especially the civilians, had NOTHING-ZERO-NADA to do with those attacks. The men who did died in the attacks. The masterminds should have been brought up on charges and tried in International court.
We should not be in Afghanistan AT ALL. So the death toll, while seemingly reasonable to you in a span of 10 years, should be ZERO since there is no reason to be there in the first place.
Oh and Hiroshima?!? Come on man.
Yea, in fact that was going to be my only point - that and Nagasaki. Anyone claiming the US holds high regards for human rights and civilian casualties need ONLY look at those two events to see how ridiculous that claim is.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Dogmafood, posted 06-29-2011 12:26 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dogmafood, posted 06-30-2011 6:39 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 97 of 175 (621799)
06-29-2011 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Nuggin
06-29-2011 1:43 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
We could have ended that war by killing every man woman and child one at a time going across mainland Japan. It would have taken years and been bloody as hell.
Instead, we ended the war the quickest way possible.
And in neither case would it, or could it, be said that the US holds high regards for human rights and civilian casualties.
Doubt it, but if that's what you want to believe, go for it.
Doubt it? We are talking about the US, right?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 1:43 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 3:35 AM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 107 of 175 (621887)
06-29-2011 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Nuggin
06-29-2011 3:35 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
Oh trust me, I see your point of view. And it is the same one shared, I'm assuming, by those who ok'd the dropping of those two bombs.
But it means, when you say that everyone becomes a soldier, that you hold no regard for human rights or care about the civilian casualties. I get that you decided to label them something else, but that in and of itself is the point where you disregard them as civilians and disregard their individual human rights. Surely you see that, right?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 3:35 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 1:33 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 110 of 175 (621906)
06-29-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Nuggin
06-29-2011 1:33 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
They were resisting to the last man on each and every island we had to take.
Non-combatants, women and children, were not resisting. Their government was, and so were their troops.
It's fun to sit and whine about how unfair it was for us to drop those bombs, but if you were on a boat chugging across the Pacific, ready to be the first wave of men onto Okinawa, knowing full well that you were likely to die simply because the enemy was too prideful to admit defeat, I suspect you would be singing a different tune.
Well, first of all, I'm not whining about whether or not it was unfair.
I'm pointing to the fact that a country that drops two bombs like that killing 200,000-250,000 civilians, cannot be considered a country that holds high regards for individual human rights and civilian casualties.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 1:33 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 2:43 PM onifre has replied
 Message 112 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 3:05 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 113 of 175 (621914)
06-29-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2011 2:43 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
It could if they did that to save millions of others...
Trading civilian lives for other civilian lives only makes it a bias concern for human rights a civilian casualties. That's the same thing Al Qaeda is doing, and every other terrorist group. Theirs is just religiously motivated so it's their religion that they're protecting.
Fight it's government not it's people.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 2:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 3:22 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 114 of 175 (621915)
06-29-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Nuggin
06-29-2011 3:05 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
First off, who gives a crap if people think we're moral or not. The rest of the world bitches endlessly about America while accepting charity from us.
There's literally no action or inaction that America can take that will make the Arabs like us.
If we get involved in Libya, we're interfering.
If we don't get involved in Libya, we're turning a blind eye.
If we give Egypt a BILLION dollars in aid, it's not enough.
If we give Israel a BILLION dollars in aid, it's too much.
If we're going to be accused of evil despite spending hundreds of trillions of dollars on weapons designed to reduce civilian casualities, despite literally going in and upgrading a country's infrastructure while ours collapses, despite giving aid to virtually every country on the planet -- then I say "fuck it, let's take off the kid gloves and give them something to really bitch about".
America FUCK YEAH!!!!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 3:05 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 116 of 175 (621923)
06-29-2011 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2011 3:22 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
Hmm, are you agreeing with me?
If you are also saying that the US doesn't hold a high regard for human rights and civilian casualty - other than our own and that of our interests - just as every other nation, country, state, and political organization - then yeah, we are in total agreement.
Note: I'm not saying this is wrong, lets just stop pretending we are more moral than any one else.
That depends on what color they are
Absolutely! You gotta draw the line somewhere.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 3:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2011 4:12 PM onifre has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 134 of 175 (622136)
07-01-2011 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dogmafood
06-30-2011 12:10 PM


Re: Perspective
How moral is it to abandon them to their fate?
As moral as abandoning all the other countries we've abandoned to their fate.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dogmafood, posted 06-30-2011 12:10 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 135 of 175 (622138)
07-01-2011 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dogmafood
06-30-2011 6:39 AM


Re: Perspective
Over half was actually over 60%.
It is still the fault of the US that this is taking place.
These people want to kill you Oni. All of us because we are not Muslim.
I'm more frightened of the blacks.
Look, I get that they want me dead, but so what? Al Qaeda has less members than any militia here in the US. 13,000 civilians killed to stop such a small force - at the cost of BILLIONS lets not forget - while our economy falls apart, doesn't seem worth it.
The free world should have invaded Afghanistan even if 9/11 didn't happen.
The US should have gone into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia i It's where the hijackers where from and where Bin Laden was found, respectively.
Afghanistan was one of the worse countries in that area, and since our invasion, has become worse yet. That could have been avoided and Bin Laden still been murdered...errr, I mean killed.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dogmafood, posted 06-30-2011 6:39 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Dogmafood, posted 07-04-2011 4:11 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024