News Bush stacked news media with military anlysists

[Poop-Loops]

I agree that it's unsatisfyingly ambiguous. But, in this case the target was Al Qaida. BTW, there probably is a grow-op in your neighborhood.

Then I hope there is nobody connected to Al Qaeda in my neighborhood. I don't want my house exploding while I'm watching reruns of Scrubs.

 

[flowerthrower]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".

So I'm assuming that you would encourage all people to investigate their neighbors' affairs and then judge them? If you disagree with your neighbors' politics or actions, the answer is to move away as if defeated? That's not a realistic look at what it's like to live in the world. There should always be time to work things out with your neighbors, community members.

And of course we need to assume that this neighbor was even guilty of anything in the first place...especially something which might be universally accepted as "wrong" or "dangerous". Why else would you choose to move away from your own home?

What if all the neighbors had the "moving boxes" packed but the bomb hit a day too soon? (this is ridiculous of course. the world is huge and most people aren't anticipating bombs falling from the sky, even if someone nearby is a radical) If it was your sister or cousin who got blown to bits by the sloppy attack, I'm sure you'd be upset about it.

The main problem with the war on terror is that it's a preemptive war against both faraway peoples and american citizens alike. It takes different forms for different categories of people. It is preemptive however, as with domestic spying/profiling, as with detaining here and abroad, and as with killing worldwide. The guilt of most targets of this war lies in the future. It hasn't happened yet. It's a best guess. That's the evil of the "war on terror". It is a war of judgment.

I always thought that assassination was against U.S. foreign policy anyway. Am i wrong? Is that soooo 1994?


Somalia can't defend itself the way more industrialized countries can, and if it were a European nation that received this missile attack, it would probably be considered and act of war against the whole country. What a mess.

For every bomb that we happen to hear about, there are many more falling every day.

I'd also like to point out that the US military constantly downplays casualties. The local hospitals always report more deaths and injuries than our government does, which implies that we're trying to mitigate public outcry through dishonesty. In other words, this is not proud work, even by our own standards. There's no reason to support it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If someone needs to be gotten rid of I don't see what's wrong with assassination. Of course assassination by missile is pretty sloppy.

Drankin, if you look back in history over a thousand years ago there was a Muslim who decided that the best way to get rid of your enemies was to kill the one person responsible for them being your enemies and that one person alone to prevent the needless deaths of innocents. Even soldiers are just men doing a job and following orders. So an assassin was sent and often that assassin would die. But it was one life for one life instead of a few guys several miles away pushing a button and watching a dozen people get blown to smitherines.

At any rate... Who does everyone think military analysts work for anyway? Even if they just sit around waiting for an opportunity to get on the news they would still have a vested interest in the continuation of the war wouldn't they?

 

[drankin]

If someone needs to be gotten rid of I don't see what's wrong with assassination. Of course assassination by missile is pretty sloppy.

Drankin, if you look back in history over a thousand years ago there was a Muslim who decided that the best way to get rid of your enemies was to kill the one person responsible for them being your enemies and that one person alone to prevent the needless deaths of innocents. Even soldiers are just men doing a job and following orders. So an assassin was sent and often that assassin would die. But it was one life for one life instead of a few guys several miles away pushing a button and watching a dozen people get blown to smitherines.

At any rate... Who does everyone think military analysts work for anyway? Even if they just sit around waiting for an opportunity to get on the news they would still have a vested interest in the continuation of the war wouldn't they?

Like I said earlier. Remember the Blackhawk Down incident. This happened in the same place. Under Clinton we tried to go in and take the target. That turned into a disaster. They aren't going to do that again in Somalia. I'm not going to pretend to know the best way to kill someone. This was how they decided to carry it out. We can second guess the military all we want but it's their job to pull the trigger.

I think you provide a bad example comparing how Muslims kill people. There are plenty of examples of Muslim exteremists killing civilians intentionally.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Of course. The difference is we claim they are batsh** insane and evil. We are supposed to have the moral high-ground here. I think that requires us to take more care in carrying out our [strike]murders[/strike] assassinations.

 

[Hurkyl]

We are supposed to have the moral high-ground here. I think that requires us to take more care in carrying out our [strike]murders[/strike] assassinations.

That's a good idea. I think we should start by limiting our pool of intended targets so as to exclude innocent civilians. Oh wait, we already do that.

 

[Hurkyl]

The local hospitals always report more deaths and injuries than our government does, which implies that we're trying to mitigate public outcry through dishonesty.

No, it doesn't. There are many reasonable situations consistent with this data. Your allegation is one of them. Another is that the enemy is trying to incite public outcry by inflating the number of deaths and injuries. Another is that both sides are well-intentioned and simply use different techniques to gather and analyze information. Yet another is that the two sides are actually reporting different figures, which the media conflates in an attempt to stir up some ratings.

 

[Poop-Loops]

That's a good idea. I think we should start by limiting our pool of intended targets so as to exclude innocent civilians. Oh wait, we already do that.

Cute. I guess you'll be the one telling the guy who got his kid blown up "Dude, calm down. It's not like we meant to kill your son!"

 

[Hurkyl]

Cute. I guess you'll be the one telling the guy who got his kid blown up "Dude, calm down. It's not like we meant to kill your son!"

What does that have to do with anything? Whether or not this makes for a good Lifetime television movie, isn't relevant to the situation we're disussing.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Honestly? You do physics and you can't figure something as simple as that out?

I'll help you out: Claiming that they aren't intended targets doesn't make the act of killing civilians any less deplorable.

 

[Hurkyl]

Honestly? You do physics and you can't figure something as simple as that out?

I'll help you out: Claiming that they aren't intended targets doesn't make the act of killing civilians any less deplorable.

Does too. (I agree the situation is lamentable, but I'm assuming you're using the word 'deplorable' in its other sense)

More precisely, it invalidates the primary justification for condemning the act of killing an innocent.

 

[Mokae]

That's so moving. Killing the innocent, I mean.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Does too. (I agree the situation is lamentable, but I'm assuming you're using the word 'deplorable' in its other sense)

Look, I don't need to know what a word means before I use it, okay? I just treat it like a Lagrange Multiplier. It gets me the right answer, but it doesn't matter what it is.

 

[Hurkyl]

Look, I don't need to know what a word means before I use it, okay? I just treat it like a Lagrange Multiplier. It gets me the right answer, but it doesn't matter what it is.

But if I am to understand what you say, I need to know what you mean by that word. I made an assumption, and I stated my assumption so that you could correct me if I was wrong.

Ideally, I'd like a confirmation if my assumption was correct, to remove all possibility of doubt, but I don't expect one. The worst response you can make is one like this, which doesn't actually deny my statement, but is enough like an objection that I cannot tell if I was right or wrong.


(For the record, in my opinion, neither meaning makes sense the way you used it -- one meaning makes your statement completely irrelevant, and the other makes it obviously wrong)

 

[Poop-Loops]

Okay, I checked dictionary.com and it meant exactly what I wanted it to mean, "causing or being a subject for disapproval". So I don't get what you are saying.

Secondly, the post about Lagrange Multipliers? A joke.

 

[drankin]

Of course. The difference is we claim they are batsh** insane and evil. We are supposed to have the moral high-ground here. I think that requires us to take more care in carrying out our [strike]murders[/strike] assassinations.

Kind of like this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24441862/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354079,00.html

 

[Hurkyl]

Okay, I checked dictionary.com and it meant exactly what I wanted it to mean, "causing or being a subject for disapproval". So I don't get what you are saying.

As you saw on dictionary.com, the word has multiple meanings. I had originally thought you meant "causing or being a subject for grief", i.e. "lamentable", which is the meaning which I usually ascribe to the word. In fact, I had even written a reply under that presumption. (I deleted it after checking www.m-w.com and saw the other meaning)

 

[Poop-Loops]

Kind of like this?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24441862/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354079,00.html

What?

 

[drankin]

What?

More care?

 

[Art]

Does too. (I agree the situation is lamentable, but I'm assuming you're using the word 'deplorable' in its other sense)

More precisely, it invalidates the primary justification for condemning the act of killing an innocent.

Just to try and understand your poorly stated pov in your opinion how many innocent victims of an attack does it take before the attack becomes morally and ethically wrong? 1? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? or do you believe even if millions are killed so long as they were not the primary target then it's okay?

 

[Hurkyl]

how many innocent victims of an attack does it take before the attack becomes morally and ethically wrong?

That judgement cannot be made based solely on that statistic, of course.

 

[Poop-Loops]

No, but as that number gets larger, it becomes the dominating factor in the judgment.

 

[Art]

That judgement cannot be made based solely on that statistic, of course.

Great to see how able you are to be so blase with other people's lives. I wonder if you would be quite so understanding if you or your friends and family were amongst the innocent victims of such an attack.

Still as you are saying there are other variables then there can be no absolutes and so this 'absolute' statement by you is therefore incorrect

More precisely, it invalidates the primary justification for condemning the act of killing an innocent.

Although you now seem to have shifted from your original stance that so long as civilians were not the primary target it automatically exonerates the attackers I'm still interested to know how many innocent victims you see as 'justifiably' expendable for the operation I quoted above based on the information we have available. Personally I think if it was that valuable a target then it was worth putting US lives on the line rather than sacrificing innocents.

It never ceases to surprise me no matter how vile an act you will always find some apologist willing to try to obfuscate and/or justify it.

 

[drankin]

Great to see how able you are to be so blase with other people's lives. I wonder if you would be quite so understanding if you or your friends and family were amongst the innocent victims of such an attack.

Still as you are saying there are other variables then there can be no absolutes and so this 'absolute' statement by you is therefore incorrect

I'm still interested to know how many innocent victims you see as 'justifiably' expendable for the operation I quoted above based on the information we have available.

It never ceases to surprise me how no matter how vile an act you will always find some apologist willing to try to obfuscate and/or justify it.

Art, I'm interested on how you would go about killing these targets whether in Somalia or Baghdad. They hide out in civilian populations. Would you just say they are now in a safe zone and cannot be taken out? Meanwhile they are making plans on how to kill civilians and US soldiers, INTENTIONALLY. Those who pull the trigger have to make difficult decisions and have a small window of time to make them. We are applying military force (I won't call it "warfare" for your sake) against known terrorists.

You don't give solutions to these difficult problems, Art. You just complain about how the solution used is the wrong one. You might wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Anyone can complain.

 

[quadraphonics]

I'll help you out: Claiming that they aren't intended targets doesn't make the act of killing civilians any less deplorable.

No, but the fact that the primary target would, if left alive, have himself killed far more civilians does. It's called proportionality, and is a basic concept of just war theory and international law. It's not simply a matter grounding all moral judgements in terms of "killing civilians is bad," as that doesn't lead us anywhere other than "all war is bad."

Of course, the problem with all of this is that you, me and pretty much everyone else lacks sufficient information to estimate how many people this guy would have ended up killing, or how many people the US war planners that launched the strike could reasonably have expected to kill, so the various arguments all end up being pure speculation based on preexisting political bias. Although, as far as that goes, I do personally find it disturbing that so many people will give the government the benefit of the doubt on this. Last week, nobody had ever heard of this guy, and we have yet to even hear of any acts of terrorism attributed to him, but as long as he's with Al Qaeda, nobody cares.

 

[Hurkyl]

No, but as that number gets larger, it becomes the dominating factor in the judgment.

But without knowing the other factors, we cannot know at what point this is the one that dominates.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Battle of Mogadishu was a fiasco. Doesn't seem like the mission was planned or executed very well. Perhaps it should not have been implimented and other approaches should have been investigated.

Art, I'm interested on how you would go about killing these targets whether in Somalia or Baghdad. They hide out in civilian populations. Would you just say they are now in a safe zone and cannot be taken out? Meanwhile they are making plans on how to kill civilians and US soldiers, INTENTIONALLY. Those who pull the trigger have to make difficult decisions and have a small window of time to make them. We are applying military force (I won't call it "warfare" for your sake) against known terrorists.

You don't give solutions to these difficult problems, Art. You just complain about how the solution used is the wrong one. You might wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Anyone can complain.

Pushing the button to launch a missle into someones neighborhood knowing full well that there will be "collateral damage" seems fairly intentional to me. Just because one might feel bad about it or need to justify it to themselves doesn't remove intentionality.

And just how small a time frame do you think we are looking at if all we are doing is dropping a missle on the guys head whether he is in the presence of innocent civilians or not?

 

[Art]

Art, I'm interested on how you would go about killing these targets whether in Somalia or Baghdad. They hide out in civilian populations. Would you just say they are now in a safe zone and cannot be taken out? Meanwhile they are making plans on how to kill civilians and US soldiers, INTENTIONALLY. Those who pull the trigger have to make difficult decisions and have a small window of time to make them. We are applying military force (I won't call it "warfare" for your sake) against known terrorists.

You don't give solutions to these difficult problems, Art. You just complain about how the solution used is the wrong one. You might wonder why you aren't taken seriously. Anyone can complain.

They don't 'hide out' in civilian populations. They are insurrectionists, they don't have military bases to work from although I can see why such emotive terms with all of it's negative connotations appeals to you as a propaganda tool.

In the specific example the target was involved in a civil war in Somalia. This hardly presents a threat of clear and present danger to US lives and so your scenario of an imminent attack on US troops and/or civilians is nonsense.

I have already told you my solution. If the target is considered valuable enough to risk loss of life then those lives risked should be the attackers not innocent bystanders. Who has the right to decide that the lives of US personnel are more valuable than the lives of innocent civilians especially when the attack is being made on the innocent civilians' soil?

The test is would US forces behave this way if the collateral damage was American civilians. I suspect rather strongly they would not and if they did there would be uproar which brings us back to my starting point. It is time the media began to shine a light on some of these ops if for no other reason that Americans understand that the victims of their oppression do not hate them for anything as mundane as their freedoms as Bush likes to say but rather for much more concrete reasons.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, but the fact that the primary target would, if left alive, have himself killed far more civilians does. It's called proportionality, and is a basic concept of just war theory and international law. It's not simply a matter grounding all moral judgements in terms of "killing civilians is bad," as that doesn't lead us anywhere other than "all war is bad."

Of course, the problem with all of this is that you, me and pretty much everyone else lacks sufficient information to estimate how many people this guy would have ended up killing, or how many people the US war planners that launched the strike could reasonably have expected to kill, so the various arguments all end up being pure speculation based on preexisting political bias. Although, as far as that goes, I do personally find it disturbing that so many people will give the government the benefit of the doubt on this. Last week, nobody had ever heard of this guy, and we have yet to even hear of any acts of terrorism attributed to him, but as long as he's with Al Qaeda, nobody cares.

And we probably haven't any statistics about the number of people from that community in which he lived may now join a terrorist group in order to get revenge on the americans who dropped a missile in their neighborhood or killed one of their relatives. So how many terrorists do you think may have been created by the sloppy job of getting rid of one?

 

[drankin]

No, but the fact that the primary target would, if left alive, have himself killed far more civilians does. It's called proportionality, and is a basic concept of just war theory and international law. It's not simply a matter grounding all moral judgements in terms of "killing civilians is bad," as that doesn't lead us anywhere other than "all war is bad."

Of course, the problem with all of this is that you, me and pretty much everyone else lacks sufficient information to estimate how many people this guy would have ended up killing, or how many people the US war planners that launched the strike could reasonably have expected to kill, so the various arguments all end up being pure speculation based on preexisting political bias. Although, as far as that goes, I do personally find it disturbing that so many people will give the government the benefit of the doubt on this. Last week, nobody had ever heard of this guy, and we have yet to even hear of any acts of terrorism attributed to him, but as long as he's with Al Qaeda, nobody cares.

This guy was responsible for a number of specific killings a few years ago. And he was an Al Qaeda leader as well. He wasn't killed just because he was Al Qaeda.