War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA

Oranges are a chief export of Florida. It is also home to Disney World.It's fun saying things about Florida which aren't actually part of the discussion at hand.I don't care where the hijackers were from, I care about who sent them. Okay, but I don't give a crap about where Bin Laden was last year. I gave a crap about where Bin Laden was in 2001.The fact that Bush took a phone call from Bin Laden's brother and decided to not hunt him down occurred after the invasion started.Could Bush have been a man about it and told the American people "Look, I can't go after this guy or I have to give back a lot of money"? Yes. But, the fact is he didn't.So, the war dragged on, until we could get a Democrat in office who would actually do something about Bin Laden. Now he's dead, it's time to bring home the troops.And, if the Afghanistanis want to go back to murdering one another in tribal wars, LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, more power to them. Sigh. You are kidding right? You are actually telling the Libyan people NOT to overthrow their dictator because they won't be able to leave Libya is they start a war in Libya? Hello, they LIVE there already.We are assisting NATO in Libya because it's our duty to do so.If you want to call "flying remote control airplanes" a "war", then what ISN'T a war?

quote:

---

May, 2009 - According to UN figures, last year alone saw 2,200 civilians killed, over half in insurgent attacks and nearly 40 percent by foreign and Afghanforces. There are currently around 70,000 foreign troops operating in Afghanistan, more than half of them from the United States.

---

quote:

---

"These leaks also show that the Taleban are responsible for the majority of the systematic human rights violations and violations of the laws of war in this conflict, but this does not excuse NATO forces from their responsibility to protect civilians."

---

From your Amnesty Int. links. Watch out for the counter spin. How many civilians died in the Iran/Iraq war? How many did the Russians kill in Afghanistan? How many has Qaddafi Duck killed? What about the Syrians? Your own links point out that the Taliban are killing more civilians than anyone else. Intentionally. Then we could review the executions for adultery and stonings and cut off arms and honour killings that take place during peace time. How many of those slip past the 6:00 news?Look. 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. SOURCE. Pakistan, China, Russia, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, UAE and Turkey among them. There was a fair chunk of the world that agreed that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do in response to 9/11. 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. It’s fucked up I know.Oh and Hiroshima?!? Come on man.

Saudi Arabia sent them. Most of the hijackers were Saudis - over half - and Saudi Arabia has always been the epicenter of fundamentalist Islam in the middle east.If the Taliban had had something to do with 9/11, that would be a reasonable cause for war. When I thought they did I supported the war in Afghanistan. Come on. Don't be a tool. If dropping bombs on people from airplanes isn't a war, then what is a war?It may, or may not, be legitimate to start a NATO war in Libya. It may, or may not, be something we're obligated to do. What's the mission? What's the end-game scenario? What possible fucking reason is there to believe that we've not just committed ourselves to a third quagmire? This isn't just academic for me, anymore - my wife is a Captain in US AMEDD, now.I still remember "Democracy, whiskey, sexy!" in the early days of Iraq; now those people fucking hate us. How long before Libya is another massive clusterfuck where things are too fragile for us to leave and too dangerous to stay indefinitely?

This seems to be an on-going theme in this thread - the "they" factor.The Japanese civilians made no such threat. 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.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

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. 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. 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? 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. 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

The Japanese civilians were worshiping at the feet of a God-king.
Japan started a war with us. We ended the war with Japan.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.Japan was CLEARLY beaten before we dropped the bombs, yet they were unwilling (mentally unable) to discuss peace. Doubt it, but if that's what you want to believe, go for it.

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? We are talking about the US, right?- Oni

There are no civilian casualties if an enemy claims they will fight to the last. At that point, they are all soldiers.

I am sure that those dangerous pre-lingual toddlers were literally seething with anti-American thoughts.Or does killing babies count as a pre-emptive strike............?

Curious, would you build some sort of camp to "euthanise" prisoners of war, people running from their country, the people left in a city you captured.Or would you just order the troops to shoot them on sight and leave their bodies to rot?

And there are no babies in the American Northwest?Don't pretend the Japanese were innocent in this encounter.

There are no prisoners of war, no people running, no people left.Total war means they are fighting back.Now, maybe the Japanese were wrong in their boasts about what the resistance would be like, maybe they weren't. We elected not to call their bluff.

As this argument has widened and progressed, I am officially changing my topic title.In regards to morality, is there a distinction between the United States of Americas official and unofficial foreign policy?Is there a distinction between the U.S. and Al Qaeda?

Of course.The US is a Nation State while Al Qaeda is a political organization.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Perhaps my next question would be this:In todays world, how can we hold individuals or groups of individuals responsible for acts of war against nations?Often, when police need to apprehend a suspect, they have to violate an individuals household who is suspected of harboring such a suspect.It would be testing the law, however, if the police occupied the house after the suspect slipped out the back door.