|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,810 Year: 4,067/9,624 Month: 938/974 Week: 265/286 Day: 26/46 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 375 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The US Gov't is Guilty of Murder | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
CS writes: And if Hiroshima wasn't a crime then some drone strikes certainly aren't.
CS writes: Weapons evolve and get better and people are going to be uncomfortable with the use of the new technology, but its not "criminal". The consequence of actions that might not be considered "criminal" by an aggressor nation is called blowback. Perhaps you remember this:
(Even though the weapons used on 9/11 were of old technology, I gotta say, I still remain uncomfortable with them.) Edited by dronester, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
And if Hiroshima wasn't a crime then some drone strikes certainly aren't.
The consequence of actions that might not be considered "criminal" by an aggressor nation is called blowback. And?
Perhaps you remember this How could I forget? What's your point?
(Even though the weapons used on 9/11 were of old technology, I gotta say, I still remain uncomfortable with them.) Just because people are uncomfortable with new technology doesn't mean that they cannot still be uncomfortable by the old technology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined:
|
As long as humans remain uncivilized, they will kill each other. This has been going on ever since civilization began. Innocent victims aka collateral damage has occurred in all conflicts. Whether it is Hiroshima or drones, it is nothing but super lessor of 2 evils mentality. This will continue as long a humans are guided by greed, hate and stupid stereotyping.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
BS48 writes: As long as humans remain uncivilized, they will kill each other. This has been going on ever since civilization began. Innocent victims aka collateral damage has occurred in all conflicts. Whether it is Hiroshima or drones, it is nothing but super lessor of 2 evils mentality. This will continue as long a humans are guided by greed, hate and stupid stereotyping. And it will continue when bad men support war criminals . . . and it will also continue when good men do nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
dronester writes:
Thank goodness that no-one here is supporting war criminals then. And it will continue when bad men support war criminals We haven't even mentioned any, from what I remember - so you can rest, contented that no-one here is supporting war criminals./pat Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And it will continue when bad men support war criminals . . . and it will also continue when good men do nothing. So do something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1531 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
He is, he is.
Posting his disdain on a Interwebz forum."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 375 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
You've not been able to explain how it's more legal for the United States to "try" people not in custody, who are not American citizens, and who are engaged in conduct that may not even be illegal under their own law. I would point out that under those circumstances - the accused being unable to face their accuser, challenge evidence, or present a defense - no "trial" could be anything but a farce. I haven't been able to explain it because that's the point. You couldn't legally kill these people unless you declare some nebulous world engulfing war.
Sadly, accidental, unintended casualties is the name of the game in military intervention. But many less people are dead as a result of drone strikes than would be dead as a result of a military invasion and occupation of Pakistan. Again with the false dichotomies. You start with the assumption that somebody needs to die. How about the option of not droning the funeral? I have no problem with drones over any other weapon. In fact they are far superior in many ways. They don't risk a pilot. They can fly for up to 30 hrs which gives the operators lots of time to try and minimize collateral damage. They are cheaper than a jet and don't burn so much gas so they are green too! On top of that, you can send them where you just wouldn't send a jet plane because that would be too much like a war. What's not to like?
Make what illegal? Make killing people by accident illegal. The fact that we have been killing each other accidentally for millennia is not much of an argument in support of continuing to do so. Just for a little context and to support the notion that the US is actually at war with somebody, how many terrorist attacks that took place in the last decade against the US can you cite? Where is this peril that demands the killing of innocents? I am not saying that there is no threat but where is the proportionality of response?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 375 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Your like a knight arguing with someone from World War 1 about how using guns on the battlefield is criminal because the bullets might miss their target and hit something else. No, I am not like that at all. I am saying that there is a limit to the extent of the battlefield. I am saying that the intended targets are a lot more like criminals than they are like combatants. I am saying that because I don't want my funerals to be attacked I will not support the allies of my country, or anyone else, attacking other peoples funerals. I am saying that if you are going to go around killing people then they better deserve to die. I am saying that you can not call yourself civilized and go around killing people who do not deserve to die. I am suggesting that if enough people said that it was unacceptable then it would be unacceptable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 375 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
Posting his disdain on a Interwebz forum. Well it is more than posting his support.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dogmafood writes:
So, you are advocating the bizarre position of intentional deaths being legal and accidental deaths being illegal. Make killing people by accident illegal. And how exactly should soldiers ensure that they completely avoid accidental deaths?Because, unless you can guarantee a way to avoid unexpected deaths, no soldier could risk going into battle. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 375 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
So, you are advocating the bizarre position of intentional deaths being legal and accidental deaths being illegal. Well you have your natural accidents like getting run over by a truck and you have your unnatural accidents like getting blown up by a missile. It's hardly bizarre. All the best legal killing is done with the deadliest of intent.
Because, unless you can guarantee a way to avoid unexpected deaths, no soldier could risk going into battle. I would suggest baby steps but I like your vision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Because a nation's military used military ordinance to attack them? No, because it was a zone where a small tactical army of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were combating the US to weaken our nation. Same as what we do when we drop missles from drones. They don't have the taxes to fund a 98 billion dollar defense budget so, they had to get creative with their weaponry.
Drone strikes don't violate any of the provisions of Article 8 of these statutes. It clearly does, you just failed to read it or didn't care to concede that it does. As usual.
quote: - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Thank goodness that no-one here is supporting war criminals then. Plenty of people here voted for and still support the decisions of the Bush administration. So yeah, many here do support a war criminal. I'd also wager many here supported Reagan, who supported the Contras, who were war criminals themselves, and by proxy so was Reagan. So there are plenty of war criminal supporters here. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dogmafood writes:
Perhaps you could give definitions of 'natural accident' and 'unnatural accident', since you have made up these terms to try and support your crazy ideas. Well you have your natural accidents like getting run over by a truck and you have your unnatural accidents like getting blown up by a missile.Or is it just a distinction without a difference: "A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the argument as a whole." Dogmafood writes:
You think the developed world should disband its armies? I would suggest baby steps but I like your vision.You think that would be a good thing?? Your responses lack anything beyond naive knee-jerk reactions."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024