|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 378 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The US Gov't is Guilty of Murder | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
onifre writes:
Bush was convicted of war crimes?!? Panda writes: Plenty of people here voted for and still support the decisions of the Bush administration. So yeah, many here do support a war criminal. Thank goodness that no-one here is supporting war criminals then.Wow - I somehow missed that news story. Can you provide some links - it would be interesting to read...
onifre writes:
And by that logic, anyone that voted Republican in the 80's is 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.And since the UK supported Reagan: anyone that voted Conservative in the 80's is a war criminal. Guilt by association will find us all guilty eventually.J'accuse! "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
onifre writes:
Quote-mining? 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: Really?? "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 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You couldn't legally kill these people unless you declare some nebulous world engulfing war. So then, you admit that there's no "due process" violation here, since the people being targeted by air strikes aren't due any process in American courts.
You start with the assumption that somebody needs to die. What do you think militaries do, deliver flowers?
Make killing people by accident illegal. If it's an accident, how could you ever be guilty of it? If you act with reckless indifference and thereby cause an accident, it's no accident at all.
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? About six a month, in fact. My best friend growing up died in one. He was an infantry paramedic trying to evacuate wounded soldiers when his medivac team came under rocket attack from Al Qaeda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I am saying that the intended targets are a lot more like criminals than they are like combatants. How are they "like criminals" if what they're doing isn't against their laws?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So I thought to myself "you know, I bet Oni has, per usual, used selective quoting to misrepresent his sources", and what a surprise, I was right!
quote: Drone strikes don't violate Article 8, but you've violated the forum guidelines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 378 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
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. A natural accident is not reasonably preventable. Like when a moose runs out on the highway and tries to mate with your Toyota. An unnatural accident isn't really an accident at all but rather a predictable result of behaviour. Like when you 'accidentally' blow up someone at a restaurant with your missile. Saying that you didn't really mean to kill that guy does not make it an accident. The same way that when a drunk kills someone with his car we don't say 'Oh that was an accident because he didn't mean to kill someone.' We say 'you should have known better' and therefore it is not an accident but rather negligence or even homicide.
. You think the developed world should disband its armies? You think that would be a good thing?? I believe that this is called a straw man argument. I have said repeatedly that I think we should stop allowing our armies to 'accidentally' kill people outside of any recognizable battlefield. Does this equate with disbanding our armies? Having said that, yeah, I think that eventually disbanding the armies would be a great thing. Don't you? You don't get to be civilized by changing the meaning of the word to include your behaviour. You get to be civilized by changing your behaviour to match the meaning of the word. I don't think that we should be able to absolve ourselves of guilt by claiming the deaths accidental.
... crazy ideas. I am astounded by that description.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Bush was convicted of war crimes?!? Are theives only people who have been formally convicted of theft? Or, in your opinion, can someone be so good of a theif that they've never been convicted?
And by that logic, anyone that voted Republican in the 80's is a war criminal. Supported a war criminal. I'll grant you though, perhaps not knowingly. But that was then. Anyone showing support now for Reagan, post Iran/Contra, is knowingly supporting a war criminal. Are you saying that aiding the Contras should not be considered a war crime? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
That's what I quoted, what the fuck are you silly gooses going on about quote mining?
The particulars about the drone attacks is covered here: "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians" It continues with "...or civilian objects or widespread, long term damage, etc." But the part that covers drone attacks is what I quoted. Drone attacks violate Article 8. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
onifre writes:
Yes. Are theives only people who have been formally convicted of theft? Do you not agree with 'innocent until proven guilty'? onifre writes:
Good to know there is a statute of limitation on war crimes.
But that was then. onifre writes:
But that was then. Are you saying that aiding the Contras should not be considered a war crime?"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
onifre writes:
Seriously? That's what I quoted, what the fuck are you silly gooses going on about quote mining? The particulars about the drone attacks is covered here: "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians" It continues with "...or civilian objects or widespread, long term damage, etc." But the part that covers drone attacks is what I quoted. Drone attacks violate Article 8.Ok. All wars violate the provisions of Article 8. The particulars about war is covered here: "Intentionally launching an attack" It continues with "...in the knowledge that such attack, etc." But the part that covers war is what I quoted. Wars violate Article 8."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Oni writes: Are theives only people who have been formally convicted of theft?
Panda writes: Yes. So in your opinion, unless someone is caught and processed in a court of law, they might be stealing from people's home but they are not considered theives?
Do you not agree with 'innocent until proven guilty'? That's only once someone has been caught and processed. Some people have such connection that it allows them to be above the law in some cases and therefore doesn't get them their day in court. But their actions speak for themselves, and they can surely commit the crime without seeing the inside of a courtroom.
Good to know there is a statute of limitation on war crimes. I'll ask it more direct then. Should the actions of Reagan during the Iran/Contra be considered a war crime? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
All wars violate the provisions of Article 8. Since when are we at war with Pakistan? Who are we at war with exactly? All drones sent to bomb areas in Pakistan by US is the US "intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life to civilians" in a country that we are not at war with. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
onifre writes:
Might be stealing from people's home? So in your opinion, unless someone is caught and processed in a court of law, they might be stealing from people's home but they are not considered theives?If we are not certain then they should not be called thieves. Oni writes:
So, until they are caught and processed, you would presume them guilty?
Panda writes:
That's only once someone has been caught and processed. Do you not agree with 'innocent until proven guilty'? Oni writes:
Yeah, Oni! Stick it to the man!
Some people have such connection that it allows them to be above the law in some cases and therefore doesn't get them their day in court. But their actions speak for themselves, and they can surely commit the crime without seeing the inside of a courtroom. Oni writes:
And I'll address the point you were making and that I was criticising: I'll ask it more direct then. Should the actions of Reagan during the Iran/Contra be considered a war crime?Oni: "I'd also wager many here supported Reagan, who supported the Contras, who were war criminals themselves, and by proxy so was Reagan." And, by proxy, so were Reagan's supporters - according to your flawed logic. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3742 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
oni writes:
Seriously? All drones sent to bomb areas in Pakistan by US is the US "intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attacks will cause incidental loss of life to civilians" in a country that we are not at war with.Do I really have to explain that removing 60% of the words from a sentence will change its meaning? The full sentence is: "Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;" The 30 words you conveniently omitted are not there simply as decoration.They convey meaning - well, maybe not to you. But they definitely contain meaning: they explain why drone attacks do not violate Article 8. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Might be stealing from people's home? If we are not certain then they should not be called thieves. Ok.... You walk into your home and everything has been taken. Many in your neighborhood have experienced the same things. Let's pretend we're writing a screen play.
quote: Now... What word do we place in the "blank"?
So, until they are caught and processed, you would presume them guilty? If I saw someone shoot another guy in front of me, I don't need a court to tell me he's guilty. There are cases where it is evident that the person is guilty.
And I'll address the point you were making and that I was criticising: Oni: "I'd also wager many here supported Reagan, who supported the Contras, who were war criminals themselves, and by proxy so was Reagan." Reagan funded rebel Contras using money from weapons sold to Iran. Anyone supporting him is supporting a war criminal. - Oni
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024