REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Bombing for peace

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Friday, January 13, 2012 13:01
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2797
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:27 AM

CANTTAKESKY


...is like fucking for virginity.

This is how people see us in the countries where we go in and kill civilians. All Americans should watch this footage...



...then ask, "Who are the terrorists?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:15 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I'm sorry, but when the lady journalist stated " that's not what happens, ever " , concerning our moral superiority on deciding who lives or dies, I have to call horse shit. There are countless instances when US soldiers have aided civilians and enemy combatants alike, even going into harms way themselves to do so. Show me ONE time when any terrorist has ever done that for the folks he's trying to murder. It never happens, ever.

And I don't buy their claims posted, at face value, that x number of people were killed for each targeted individual.

The video shows a series of explosions, mostly in or near populated areas. The 1st one appears to be from a plane, dropping a bomb. No ID of whose plane it was, or what the target. Other explosions were more obscure. One in particular , you could see allied tanks in the foreground, and what appeared to be an ammo depot being detonated. Yes, very big, very loud, and very deadly explosions, but not a ONE of them shown to be intentionally caused by US forces, or targeting civilians.

Sorry, I'll not be swayed by clearly biased propaganda.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Show me ONE time when any terrorist has ever done that for the folks he's trying to murder. It never happens, ever.


No one's born a terrorist. Who's to say the utter futility of trying to save people around them didn't drive some of them to this?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 11:53 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Show me ONE time when any terrorist has ever done that for the folks he's trying to murder. It never happens, ever.


No one's born a terrorist. Who's to say the utter futility of trying to save people around them didn't drive some of them to this?



Yeah, that's not remotely addressing my point. Nor does it hold any water. The 9/11 terrorists weren't forged out of having seen friends, family and neighbors get blown up.

" I hate seeing innocent people die so much, I'm going to kill MORE innocent people !! Allahu Akbar!!!! "

No, I don't think so.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:20 PM

BYTEMITE


One of the stages of grief is anger. Grief also tends to be irrational.

The scenario you scoff at is, actually, entirely likely. What was most American's reaction to 9-11? Something along the lines of "lets go kill those bastards?" Is it possible, sometime somewhere in the course of that endeavor, we might have killed some innocents? Do you believe that the deaths of those innocents, while regrettable, were warranted in the pursuit of our goals?

Vicious circle.

Put another way: you have a sectarian religious war that's been going on for almost 1000 years. They don't think of each other as innocent, because each side has killed each other. They see America as an also guilty third part in the sectarian religious war (christian crusaders) - which, while that might be inaccurate, they also see us dropping bombs on their villages. In their minds, American soldiers aren't innocent and American civilians pay for the bombs in taxes so American civilians aren't innocent.

But at some point, somewhere, SOMEONE is gonna be a non-combatant (an innocent) and they're GOING to be killed in the crossfire. And innocence knows no national boundaries. They could be Jewish, Christian, Sunni, Shiite, Israeli, American, Iraqi, Afghan, Pakistani, even Iranian.

What creates a crazy violent fanatic in the Middle East are the same things that create a violent crazy fanatic anywhere else in the world. You don't get all that rage from nowhere, it's usually personal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:40 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And I don't buy their claims posted, at face value, that x number of people were killed for each targeted individual.



I just saw this tweeted:

"Militant" = whoever is killed by a drone attack.

As in, "Today, U.S. drone kills 3 militants in Pakistan."

-----
I love, therefore I am.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 12:51 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



I can buy that one can be moved to sign up and go fight against the infidel, invading your lands. But to say one is so fed up at seeing innocents die, they then sign up to kill even more innocents ? Sorry, not buying it.

And you act as if collateral damage has never occurred in war before the middle east. I got news for ya...it's happened, and happened a LOT. And you know what? MAJOR wars were ended, in part, because of it. Hitler and the Imperial Japanese Army were both defeated, not by singing Kumbaya, but with some very serious military action.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:39 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

But to say one is so fed up at seeing innocents die, they then sign up to kill even more innocents ? Sorry, not buying it.


Again, they don't think the people they're killing are innocents. Fog of war, shortsightedness, etc. etc.

Quote:

And you act as if collateral damage has never occurred in war before the middle east.


That's a red herring. Past casualties of war do not justify casualties of war in general.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:05 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
...is like fucking for virginity.

This is how people see us in the countries where we go in and kill civilians.



Interesting that apparently no one sees the other folks who pretty much daily are killing civilians.

Never see complaints about the folks who are bombing Shia pilgrims in Iraq, or schools in Afghanistan, or markets in Pakistan provinces where folks oppose the Taliban.

They get reported on BBC World and Al Jazeera, but there's no outrage.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:08 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
They get reported on BBC World and Al Jazeera, but there's no outrage.

Yes, there is a lot of violence in the world. It is all deplorable.

But THIS is more outrageous because *I* am doing it. *I* personally am paying them to do bomb innocent civilians in other countries who have never done anything to me. I am responsible for their deaths.

What does that make me?

-----
I love, therefore I am.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:21 PM

DREAMTROVE




rap,

Many of the people we call terrorists help people all the time, including those of countries they are trying to overthrow.. We know hezbollah does this, the taliban do it, and the people we call al qaeda, the mujahideen do it.

It's possible you would say "these people are not terrorists" and i might agree, but at some point you have to decided where that line is, and if you want to hold to your claim that terrorists never help people, bear that in mind when you choose your definiton. I know that obama's new definition includes people who help people.


Choose a definition of terrorist, but one consistent with reality.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:24 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
...is like fucking for virginity.

This is how people see us in the countries where we go in and kill civilians.



Interesting that apparently no one sees the other folks who pretty much daily are killing civilians.

Never see complaints about the folks who are bombing Shia pilgrims in Iraq, or schools in Afghanistan, or markets in Pakistan provinces where folks oppose the Taliban.

They get reported on BBC World and Al Jazeera, but there's no outrage.



Geezer,

I concur, but otoh, we're not exactly helping that situaiton. I don't think we entirely caused it, but we are making it worse. Continued involvement and "killing bad guys" seems to radically increase the number of bad guya. What course of action do you propose?

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:24 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



You're not bombing innocent civilians. And that's the point. Think of every Libyan tank blown up, every Taliban / al Qaeda hide out obliterated, that never gets shown. How many bombs may hit their military target, and if one goes astray, or regrettably hits in an area that's densely populated, THAT's the one which gets shown, over and over again.

For the 9,584th time, we're NOT targeting civilians. It's against our best interest to do so, but on occasion, bad things do happen. This is 180 degrees contrary to what the terrorists do.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
rap,

Many of the people we call terrorists help people all the time, including those of countries they are trying to overthrow.. We know hezbollah does this, the taliban do it, and the people we call al qaeda, the mujahideen do it.

It's possible you would say "these people are not terrorists" and i might agree, but at some point you have to decided where that line is, and if you want to hold to your claim that terrorists never help people, bear that in mind when you choose your definiton. I know that obama's new definition includes people who help people.


Choose a definition of terrorist, but one consistent with reality.



Cutting off noses of women, closing down schools for girls, yeah.. them folks are a REAL big help to the locals, huh?


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:36 PM

BYTEMITE


Not as bad as the drug lords, though. If farmers go into debt with them they take the family's sons and daughters and rape them. Force the girls into marriage, make the boys dancing boys who are auctioned off by pimps.

There's plenty to be outraged about on every side, I just see the shades of grey. All sides in war are deplorable. When we win a war, we get to write the history. Doesn't mean we didn't kill, destroy the land, steal artwork, rape the women, have vigilante kill squads and such. It doesn't matter to me the numbers, bad is bad no matter how many times it's done. One bad thing doesn't become good when compared to a WORSE thing.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:36 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
For the 9,584th time, we're NOT targeting civilians.

Let's say for argument's sake that I believe you. I don't, but let's pretend I do.

We are still killing innocent civilians by accident. Now maybe you're ok with that.

But I am not. I am killing innocent civilians. I don't care that it is by accident. They are still as dead because of me. And it doesn't let me sleep at night.

-----
I love, therefore I am.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 4:28 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Then the only other alternative is to give up, never even try to do anything, ever again. Whether it's slaughter in Libya, or some dictator lobbing chemical shells on a village, YOUR solution is to never lift a finger to help, anyone, anywhere, at all.

I get that. I really do. It would have allowed the Germans and Japanese to win WW2, but then, at least, you could sleep peacefully at night, which is what matters most.

Got it.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:05 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Then the only other alternative is to give up,



That is a false dichotomy: 1) Bomb the shit out of them, collateral damage be damned, or 2) Give up.

Quote:

YOUR solution is to never lift a finger to help, anyone, anywhere, at all.


My solution would be to withdraw all troops from all countries. Then restore diplomatic relations based on dialogue and trade instead of force. Treat people with respect and dignity so people wouldn't want to terrorize us to begin with.

Pretending we've never done anything wrong to provoke is disingenuous.



-----
I love, therefore I am.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:11 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Bombing the shit out of them was what was done 60 years ago, when we and the Brits carpet bombed whole cities. That's not what we're doing here, not by a long shot.

And as much as YOU might want it to work, merely treating others with respect and dignity doesn't yield results. Some see it as a sign of weakness, and an all access pass to do MORE of what they want, regardless of what we may hope they'll do.


Your mindset isn't new, of course...



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:28 AM

BYTEMITE


I would also be more assuaged if peace keeping missions didn't so often have economic incentives.

Going in to help people out is fine, but going in with only lip-service to help while the real intention is to take advantage of the situation is awful.

I also question whether the "can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" adage applies to people in foreign nations.

Lastly in regards to WW2:

1) Americans weren't exactly Jew, Pole, or Slav friendly themselves at the time. Also, concentration camps were forced labor camps, sweat shops, some of which hired out their services to foreign interests.

2) Russia won that war, and Hitler killed himself. Not only did Hitler break alliance with Russia against all common sense, but the paranoid idiot tried to attack St. Petersburg in WINTER. He deserved to lose.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Some see it as a sign of weakness, and an all access pass to do MORE of what they want


Absolutely. They're called "Americans."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:42 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

Some see it as a sign of weakness, and an all access pass to do MORE of what they want


Absolutely. They're called "Americans."



Actually, I was speaking of middle eastern culture.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 7:47 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:

2) Russia won that war, and Hitler killed himself. Not only did Hitler break alliance with Russia against all common sense, but the paranoid idiot tried to attack St. Petersburg in WINTER. He deserved to lose.



Russia sure played its part, but stating that it 'won that war', implying it was the primary reason for Hitler's defeat, is a bit revisionist. Both Allied and Red armies were on a race to Berlin, but the Allies held up, and allowed the Reds the honor, for obvious reasons. Not sure it was the proper thing to do, and judging how the German women were treated, it sure as hell wasn't the humane thing to do, but at that point of the war, playing 'nice' to the German citizens wasn't high on the 'to do' list.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:05 AM

CAVETROLL


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I would also be more assuaged if peace keeping missions didn't so often have economic incentives.

Going in to help people out is fine, but going in with only lip-service to help while the real intention is to take advantage of the situation is awful.

I also question whether the "can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" adage applies to people in foreign nations.




I'd like to point out another false dichotomy. Your "humanitarian relief" will be viewed by people with a beef against the recipients as taking sides in their little fight. America will become the enemy of another people because we helped their enemies.

If you want isolationism, you have to play it both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:13 AM

BYTEMITE


Eh, okay, fair enough. Though I still think arguably the Nazis broke themselves in the Russia winterscape. The race to Berlin was the death knell, but the defeat was by extremely poor strategy on Hitler's part. Also, apparently German code breakers sucked, their spies were laughably obvious and quickly forced to become double agents by the British, and when it came to military intelligence and special operations, the Germans were both gullible and incompetent.

So I don't really think the Nazis could have ever won.

Japan is less certain. They might have been able to take over Asia and most of the Pacific Isles. It might be that's an even more on-topic conversation than the middle east if we want to talk about killing civilians, since in that case we did it intentionally.

On the other hand, defeating Japan meant the current Chinese government could rise to power...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:14 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I'd like to point out another false dichotomy. Your "humanitarian relief" will be viewed by people with a beef against the recipients as taking sides in their little fight. America will become the enemy of another people because we helped their enemies.


Probably depends on the kind of humanitarian relief. But, point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:35 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Eh, okay, fair enough. Though I still think arguably the Nazis broke themselves in the Russia winterscape.



Absolutely! A clear and fatal folly by Hitler, no question. But with that, and the US's help, the Brits were able to fend off Hitler's attack, and the allies turned the tables enough to invade N. France.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 9:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

Many of the people we call terrorists help people all the time, including those of countries they are trying to overthrow.. We know hezbollah does this, the taliban do it, and the people we call al qaeda, the mujahideen do it.
Amen DT. One can find (if one looks, the MSM won't give it to you) all kinds of evidence of how those groups help the people of their countries, schools, medicine, etc., in contrast to what we're doing. I know it's not precisely what Rap defines, but Byte has it right:
Quote:

There's plenty to be outraged about on every side, I just see the shades of grey. All sides in war are deplorable. When we win a war, we get to write the history.
And for the umpteenth time, we DO target civilians. Any time we target someone we can't be absolutely, positively certain is a terrorist, we're targeting a civilian...and we've targeted many that way. This statement is not directed at Rap, because I already know his response, as do we all. It is just a fact.

It's also a fact that the way we behaved in the Middle East contributed to 9/11 (yes, I know the response to THAT too); when facing a vastly superior power, the only option in fighting back is guerilla tactics, "terrorism"...we learned that in our fight against the British. Of course, those were "freedom fighters" and these are "terrorists"--tho' many of them in many countries were tagged "freedom fighters" by us until we redefined them as terrorists...

Not to mention that there are plenty of instances where our troops DID deliberately target civilians, one only has to look for them.
Quote:

He used to boast about all the "stuff" he had done in Iraq and about how easy it was for an American soldier to get away with almost anything in a war. Sergeant Calvin Gibbs, 25, a native of the US state of Montana, was the highest-ranking member of a group of five soldiers that he allegedly dubbed the "kill team." Gibbs had been in Iraq long enough to know how to impress his fellow soldiers. All you have to do, he told them in December, is "toss a grenade" and you'll have killed a bunch of Afghans. The kill team apparently tossed its first grenade in January.
.....
If the claims made in the indictment are true, the crimes committed by the kill team went beyond the killing of Afghan civilians. In fact, the men allegedly devised "scenarios" for the killings, a kind of script that included plausible pretexts for the murders. Gibbs is believed to have been the planner, while the younger team members did the shooting. The men apparently treated killing as a sport.

They allegedly fired at their victims with gusto, collecting trophies that included finger and toe bones, and even a tooth.

When the men of the kill team allegedly attacked their first victim, Gul Mudin, on Jan. 15, it was as if they were shooting at clay pigeons. When they saw Mudin on the edge of a poppy field, Gibbs allegedly ordered one of the soldiers to throw a grenade over the wall and then ordered a younger soldier to open fire. But that was only the beginning. On Feb. 22, Gibbs allegedly shot Marach Agha during a patrol and then placed a Kalashnikov next to the body to make it look like self-defense. More than two months later, on May 2, the team apparently shot its last victim, Mullah Adahdad.

But how much did commanding officers know? What did the army do to investigate the murders? Or did it actually try to sweep the crimes under the table? The father of Adam Winfield, one of the five main suspects, claims that he warned the military leadership months ago.

Of course, the Kandahar case also raises the question of what we really know about the true extent of crimes in wartime, about all the misdeeds that are never reported and all the perpetrators who are never brought to trial. An esprit de corps is taking hold once again. A number of soldiers are already denying that murders were even committed in Afghanistan, insisting that they were merely acts of self-defense.

Jeremy Morlock, the youngest member of Gibbs' team and the main witness for the prosecution, also appears to be reconsidering his testimony. His attorney, Michael Waddington, argues that Morlock's statements should be disallowed because he was allegedly under the influence of prescription drugs when he made them.

According to Gibbs' attorney, his client insists that all of the killings were "appropriate engagements." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,717127-2,00.html

I can already hear the "these things happen in wars", but next time the claim is made that we "never targeted civilians", this proves it's a lie.

And, of course, there's also the example of those helicopter shootings which came out...
Quote:



Although the video's existence has been known since shortly after the July 12, 2007, attack, all attempts to make it public under the Freedom of Information Act have been rebuffed by the U.S. defence department. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263822/WikiLeaks-video-Reuter
s-journalists-civilians-gunned-US-pilots.html

Anyone who doesn't think there are many, many instances of our troops DELIBERATELY killing civilians which the military has hushed up is being deliberately blind, living in a black-and-white world where we can do no wrong, the old "with god on our side" bullshit.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:36 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Niki, it's not a lie.

Those ' civilians ' were never identified as such. They looked every bit like a group of plain clothed insurgents.

Sorry, but yes, THESE THINGS DO HAPPEN IN WAR.

Deal w/ it.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:10 PM

BYTEMITE


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maywand_District_killings

Sorry AURaptor. But I gotta call this kind of behaviour unacceptable. Just like I have to call behaviour at Abu Ghraib, Git-mo, and by hired mercenaries like Blackwater/Xe unacceptable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:20 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Those ' civilians ' were never identified as such. They looked every bit like a group of plain clothed insurgents.



In sur gent. noun. People who are killed by the US military.

As in, "Today, seven insurgents were killed by a helicopter strike."

Col lat er al Dam age. noun. Insurgent who is proven later to be innocent.

As in, "Collateral damage is inevitable, such as the seven people killed by a helicopter strike today."




-----
I love, therefore I am.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:34 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


No, insurgents are those carrying out hostile, deadly activity, against the population or military, while in civilian clothing, for the sake of creating chaos and to 'terrorize'.

And Byte, sorry, but my position stands. I'm not claiming they were justified, but it clearly is understandable as to what happened. And they most certainly weren't targeting 'civilians', just looking to target practice. They saw , in the fog of war, what they thought were hostiles.



" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:38 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


CTS, do you seriously think that we should have stayed out of WWII, even after we were attacked? Do you think we should have only fought Japan and not fought with England and the USSR in Europe? If you think that then we've got a major historical disagreement going on here. And if you think that then I think you're naive. We stayed out as long as we could, we couldn't have stayed out any longer.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:46 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

And Byte, sorry, but my position stands. I'm not claiming they were justified, but it clearly is understandable as to what happened. And they most certainly weren't targeting 'civilians', just looking to target practice. They saw , in the fog of war, what they thought were hostiles.


Which one? Because the link I posted is about a Afghanistan squadron that called themselves a kill squad and have been courtmartialed for murdering civilians. And not only did they know they were unarmed killing civilians, but they planted evidence on the civilians after the fact to make it look like the kills were legitimate. Apparently they were having fun doing this, and nearly beat to death another soldier when he blew the whistle on them.

Also, target practice is not a good enough excuse. Hey, I just killed you, because I'm looking for bad guys, but you just happened to be innocent, so let's call that a practice round. Now I'll be ready for when the real bad guys show up!

Nope.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:49 PM

BYTEMITE


Riona, heck, we weren't "staying out" of Europe even BEFORE Pearl Harbor. We'd also been at war with Japan for two years already, and were negotiating a peace treaty. We actually sunk a Japanese submarine two weeks before Pearl Harbor happened.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:53 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Quote:

Do you think we should have only fought Japan and not fought with England and the USSR in Europe?


Which would have been pretty much impossible, w/ the pact Germany had with Japan. They declared war on us , regardless. Not exactly like we could give them the silent treatment, and ignored their open war on our country.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 2:55 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Byte. I didn't check the link. I was going on the previous issue Niki had brought up, of the US helicopter gunship.

Wires crossed on that one. Never mind.

Quote:

Riona, heck, we weren't "staying out" of Europe even BEFORE Pearl Harbor. We'd also been at war with Japan for two years already, and were negotiating a peace treaty. We actually sunk a Japanese submarine two weeks before Pearl Harbor happened.


Where did YOU learn your WW2 history ? We were sending supplies to the British, and such, but we weren't IN the war in Europe. And we weren't at WAR with Japan before Dec. 7, 1941. And yeah, a Jap recon sub WAS sunk, but not much was made of it, as I understand.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:24 PM

BYTEMITE


Yeah, the U-boats were kinda making Germany hard to ignore, I'll admit.

Though even though I heard Hitler thought Britain and America were mongrel nations that couldn't keep up, I'd heard he also kinda considered both at least a little German because we both kinda speak a Germanic derived language.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, January 11, 2012 5:26 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:



Where did YOU learn your WW2 history ? We were sending supplies to the British, and such, but we weren't IN the war in Europe.



You don't think the Germans didn't see that as contributing to the war efforts? Like I said, U-boats were hitting our convoys 'cause of it, and we were sending pilots over to help out the RAF, even before Pearl Harbor.

Yes, we were very much in that war before Pearl Harbor, it just wasn't official.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 12, 2012 2:01 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:



Where did YOU learn your WW2 history ? We were sending supplies to the British, and such, but we weren't IN the war in Europe.



You don't think the Germans didn't see that as contributing to the war efforts? Like I said, U-boats were hitting our convoys 'cause of it, and we were sending pilots over to help out the RAF, even before Pearl Harbor.

Yes, we were very much in that war before Pearl Harbor, it just wasn't official.



No, YOU said the US had been at war w/ Japan for 2 years PRIOR to Pearl Harbor. That factually is inaccurate. Sure, there were rising tensions and incidents ( the recon sub ) leading up to Dec 7, but to say a state of war had existed for 2 years ?





"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. - Someone.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:22 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Coming back to the original subject line...

Quote:

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration denied any role in Wednesday's killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist, the latest in a series of events that have exacerbated tensions with Iran.

The assassination of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was the latest in a year that has already seen new U.S. economic sanctions, threats to bar American ships from the Persian Gulf, an Iranian death sentence to a jailed U.S. citizen and an escalation in Tehran's uranium enrichment program.

January 11, 2012: In this photo provided by the semi-official Fars News Agency, people gather around a car as it is removed by a mobile crane in Tehran, Iran.

Iranian reports said two assailants on a motorcycle attached a magnetic bomb to Roshan's car of, killing him and his driver. Roshan was a chemistry expert and director of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in central Iran, and the slaying suggested a widening covert effort to set back the Islamic republic's atomic program.
But US officials said they had nothing to do with it.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/11/report-bomb-kills-iran-univers
ity-professor/#ixzz1jITX273z



Does this count ?


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, January 12, 2012 4:50 PM

BYTEMITE


On further review, it wasn't two years, it was since 1937, but we technically officially only commenced open hostility in 1941, six months before Pearl Harbor.

But we were involved in the Second Sino-Japanese War.

Quote:

From December 1937 events such as the Japanese attack on the USS Panay and the Nanking Massacre swung public opinion in the West sharply against Japan and increased their fear of Japanese expansion, which prompted the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to provide loan assistance for war supply contracts to the Republic of China. Furthermore, Australia prevented a Japanese government-owned company from taking over an iron mine in Australia, and banned iron ore exports in 1938.[25] Japan retaliated by invading and occupying French Indochina (present-day Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) in 1940, and successfully blockaded China from the import of arms, fuel and 10,000 tons/month of materials supplied by the Allies through the Haiphong-Yunnan Fou railway line.
Flying Tigers Bite Back.ogg
US Air Forces video:Flying Tigers Bite Back

In mid-1941, the United States government financed the creation of the American Volunteer Group (AVG), or Flying Tigers, to replace the withdrawal of Soviet volunteers and aircraft. Led by Claire Lee Chennault, their early combat success of 300 kills against a loss of 12 of their shark painted P-40 fighters earned them wide recognition at the time when Allies were suffering heavy losses, and soon afterwards their dogfighting tactics would be adopted by the United States Army Air Forces. Furthermore, to pressure the Japanese to end all hostilities in China, the United States, Britain, and the Dutch East Indies began oil and/or steel embargos against Japan. The loss of oil imports made it impossible for Japan to continue operations in China. This set the stage for Japan to launch a series of military attacks against the Allies when the Imperial Japanese Navy raided Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

Quote:

Five bombs had Japanese "friendship" medals wired to them—medals awarded by the Japanese government to U.S. servicemen before the war.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doolittle_Raid

"War" referring to WW2 in that case. So what was going on before WW2? The Sino-Japanese War we were also involved in. Servicemen received those while on a diplomatic mission to try to cease hostilities.

Not wrong, see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 13, 2012 7:50 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Just for others' edification, given I'm not stupid enough to imagine Rap EVER admitting our soldiers could possibly target civilians:
Quote:

The release of the video from Baghdad also comes shortly after the US military admitted that its special forces attempted to cover up the killings of three Afghan women in a raid in February by digging the bullets out of their bodies.

The newly released video of the Baghdad attacks was recorded on one of two Apache helicopters hunting for insurgents on 12 July 2007. Among the dead were a 22-year-old Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, and his driver, Saeed Chmagh, 40. The Pentagon blocked an attempt by Reuters to obtain the video through a freedom of information request. Wikileaks director Julian Assange said his organisation had to break through encryption by the military to view it.

One of the helicopter crew is then heard saying that one of the group is shooting. But the video shows there is no shooting or even pointing of weapons. The men are standing around, apparently unperturbed.

The lead helicopter, using the moniker Crazyhorse, opens fire. "Hahaha. I hit 'em," shouts one of the American crew. Another responds a little later: "Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards."

One of the men on the ground, believed to be Chmagh, is seen wounded and trying to crawl to safety. One of the helicopter crew is heard wishing for the man to reach for a gun, even though there is none visible nearby, so he has the pretext for opening fire: "All you gotta do is pick up a weapon." A van draws up next to the wounded man and Iraqis climb out. They are unarmed and start to carry the victim to the vehicle in what would appear to be an attempt to get him to hospital. One of the helicopters opens fire with armour-piercing shells. "Look at that. Right through the windshield," says one of the crew. Another responds with a laugh.

Sitting behind the windscreen were two children who were wounded.

After ground forces arrive and the children are discovered, the American air crew blame the Iraqis. "Well it's their fault for bringing kids in to a battle," says one. "That's right," says another. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-att
ack
bullshit that they were responding to an attack of any kind. Anyone with brains can see the truth, which is all that needs saying. And gee, what about those Afghan women? Oh, and look at that; Iraqis tried to help people wounded by our soldiers...I guess they never do THAT, either.

Then there's:
Quote:

The soldier accused of being the ringleader of a rogue Army unit that killed three Afghan civilians last year for sport, crimes that angered Afghan leaders and villagers and rattled high levels of the American military, was found guilty of all charges on Thursday.

The soldier, Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, 26, of Billings, Mont., was found guilty of three counts of murder, of conspiring to commit murder and several other charges, including assaulting a fellow soldier and taking fingers and a tooth from the dead. He was sentenced to life in prison but could be eligible for parole in less than 10 years.
.....
All told, five soldiers were charged with killing civilians in three separate episodes early last year. Soldiers repeatedly described Sergeant Gibbs as devising “scenarios” in which the unit would fake combat situations by detonating grenades or planting weapons near their victims. They said he even supplied “drop weapons” and grenades to make the victims appear armed. Some soldiers took pictures posing with the dead and took body parts as trophies. Sergeant Gibbs is accused of snipping fingers from victims and later using them to intimidate another soldier.
.....
One of the principal witnesses against him, Pfc. Jeremy Morlock, pleaded guilty to all three killings in March and faces a 24-year sentence. Specialist Adam C. Winfield pleaded guilty in August to manslaughter in one of the killings and faces three years in prison. Pfc. Andrew Holmes pleaded guilty to one of the killings in September.

Many of the defendants, as well as six others charged in the unit, pleaded guilty to other charges, including smoking hashish and assaulting a soldier who eventually led Army investigators to discover the killings. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/us/calvin-gibbs-convicted-of-killing
-civilians-in-afghanistan.html
I guess admitting guilt or being found guilty in a military court doesn't count. Oh, and I guess the Pentagon apologizing doesn't count either:
Quote:

The Pentagon tonight apologised after shocking new details emerged of how American soldiers formed a 'death squad' to randomly murder Afghan civilians and mutilate their corpses.
An investigation by Rolling Stone magazine details how senior officers failed to stop troops killing Afghans and keeping their body parts as trophies.
In one horrific episode, the magazine claims troops threw a grenade at an innocent Afghan boy before chopping off his finger and later using it as 'gambling chip' in a game of cards.

The disturbing detail included in the dossier accuses American troops of a new level of depravity and is likely to be a public relations disaster for the military.
The U.S. Army says the photos of American soldiers posing with dead Afghans are 'in striking contrast' to its standards and values - apologising for any distress caused by the images.
.....
The investigation revealed:

Troops shot dead civilians and tried to cover their tracks;
U.S. soldiers hacked off part of a dead man's skull;
Soldiers cheered as they filmed a U.S. airstrike blowing up two Afghan civilians;
A video showed two Afghans on a motorcycle being gunned down.
.....
The men joked for weeks about killing ‘savages’ before finally murdering a boy of around 15 in a farming village, their first kill.
.....
In another incident on a night in January 2010 the platoon was driving near their forward operating base and spotted a human heat signature on the roadside through their thermal imaging equipment.
.....
‘Basically, what we did was a desperate search to justify killing this guy,’ a private named Justin Stoner Stoner told investigators. ‘But in reality he was just some old, deaf, retarded guy. We basically executed this man.’
.....
The soldiers felt invincible and emboldened by the lack of policing by their superiors.
It also details a serious of disturbing videos and pictures of the victims taken by the men - one shows a hand with a missing finger, another depicts a severed head on a stick and others show blown up legs.
In two cases soldiers pose over the bodies of their victims as if they are hunting trophies.
.....
Internal records show the ‘Kill team’ was ‘operating out in the open, in ‘plain view of the rest of the company’.

‘Far from being clandestine, as the Pentagon has implied, the murders of civilians were common knowledge among the unit and understood to be illegal by "pretty much the whole platoon",' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370758/Shocking-video-shows-U
-S-troops-cheering-airstrike-blows-Afghan-civilians.html
, we're the good guys, you betcha. Note most of it comes from the UK news source; as usual, we get more complete news from other countries than from our own news. I learned that long ago.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 13, 2012 8:28 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Niki, we are the good guys. We're not w/ out our faults.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 13, 2012 9:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, January 13, 2012 1:01 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Standard childish reply when you have no coherent point.

The overly lengthy post you had about rogue soldiers doing this and that, then getting in trouble for it, only proves my point. ( thanks,btw )

As policy, we don't condone such activity. On occasion, a few bad apples will over step their bounds, but again, I must remind you - THIS IS WAR. Screw the literal 'Congress didn't declare it ' B.S. , our guys are in uniform, carrying weapons, and shooting at folks who are shootin' back. It's a war. And , as always is the case a HELL of a lot more of this sort of stuff goes on than ever gets reported on by the Press.

You're old. You should know this sort of stuff. Stop actin' like you don't.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:42 - 4886 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:16 - 4813 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:37 - 427 posts
Pardon all J6 Political Prisoners on Day One
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:31 - 7 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, December 4, 2024 07:25 - 7538 posts
My Smartphone Was Ruining My Life. So I Quit. And you can, too.
Wed, December 4, 2024 06:10 - 3 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Tue, December 3, 2024 23:31 - 54 posts
Vox: Are progressive groups sinking Democrats' electoral chances?
Tue, December 3, 2024 21:37 - 1 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:35 - 962 posts
Trump is a moron
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:16 - 13 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, December 3, 2024 11:39 - 6941 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Mon, December 2, 2024 21:22 - 302 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL