Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
32 online now:
jar, PaulK, RAZD, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,376 Year: 20,412/19,786 Month: 809/2,023 Week: 317/392 Day: 7/41 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 91 of 175 (621786)
06-29-2011 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by crashfrog
06-28-2011 11:59 PM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
The 9/11 hijackers lived in Florida longer than they ever lived in Afghanistan.

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.

When we bagged bin Laden he had been living in Pakistan for almost a decade.

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.

It certainly drives home the importance of not fucking starting wars. Hello, Libya!

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2011 11:59 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2011 12:54 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1792
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 92 of 175 (621788)
06-29-2011 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by onifre
06-28-2011 11:53 AM


Perspective
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by onifre, posted 06-28-2011 11:53 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 1:41 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 175 (621790)
06-29-2011 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Nuggin
06-29-2011 12:17 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
I don't care where the hijackers were from, I care about who sent them.

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.

If you want to call "flying remote control airplanes" a "war", then what ISN'T a war?

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 12:17 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2011 4:59 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1264 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 responded

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

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1264 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 ProtoTypical
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 ProtoTypical, posted 06-29-2011 12:26 AM ProtoTypical has responded

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

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 96 of 175 (621798)
06-29-2011 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by onifre
06-29-2011 1:00 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
The Japanese civilians made no such threat.

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.

if abort every black and hispanic child in the US you would greatly reduce crime

Doubt it, but if that's what you want to believe, go for it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 1:00 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 1:59 AM Nuggin has responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1264 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 responded

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

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 98 of 175 (621812)
06-29-2011 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by onifre
06-29-2011 1:59 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
And in neither case would it, or could it, be said that the US holds high regards for human rights and civilian casualties.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 1:59 AM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2011 6:24 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 100 by frako, posted 06-29-2011 6:58 AM Nuggin has responded
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 06-29-2011 12:29 PM Nuggin has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 99 of 175 (621826)
06-29-2011 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Nuggin
06-29-2011 3:35 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
Nug writes:

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............?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 10:32 AM Straggler has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2815
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 100 of 175 (621830)
06-29-2011 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Nuggin
06-29-2011 3:35 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism

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

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?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Nuggin, posted 06-29-2011 10:34 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 101 of 175 (621854)
06-29-2011 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
06-29-2011 6:24 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
I am sure that those dangerous pre-lingual toddlers were literally seething with anti-American thoughts.

And there are no babies in the American Northwest?

Don't pretend the Japanese were innocent in this encounter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2011 6:24 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2011 4:19 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 806 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 102 of 175 (621855)
06-29-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by frako
06-29-2011 6:58 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
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?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by frako, posted 06-29-2011 6:58 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13154
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 103 of 175 (621872)
06-29-2011 11:23 AM


Topic Title Change
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?


Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 06-29-2011 11:35 AM Thugpreacha has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31611
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 104 of 175 (621876)
06-29-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Thugpreacha
06-29-2011 11:23 AM


Distinctions
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2011 11:23 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Thugpreacha, posted 06-29-2011 11:42 AM jar has responded

  
Thugpreacha
Member
Posts: 13154
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 105 of 175 (621878)
06-29-2011 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by jar
06-29-2011 11:35 AM


Re: Distinctions
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by jar, posted 06-29-2011 11:35 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 06-29-2011 11:55 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply
 Message 121 by frako, posted 06-29-2011 5:13 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019