Horrific Attack in Iraq - Al Qaeda Denies Involvement

[The Smoking Man]

Do you really think a passage from information booklet in a shrine is sufficient justification to equate the Japanese invasions in WWII with the American invasion in Iraq?

I didn't realize the Japanese invasions (or even Germany's invasions!) were acts of terrorism anyways, so this weak analogy doesn't even support your assertions.

Hurkyl, There is one thing you are overlooking, that passage and the actions that inspired it were enough to execute the 14 highest ranking people in Japan after the emperor.

Bush et al, have used almost the exact same justification.

Maybe it is just too simple for you to understand, Hurkyl.

Bush broke the same laws as the Japanese when he went into Iraq.

 

[alexandra]

Also would you ellucidate on your comment "You're in my house" as I am unsure what you mean by this.

Yes, Russ - I, too, would like to know what you meant by this. I think your meaning may be important. Although I have some ideas about what I think you meant, I'd rather you state your meaning yourself (just in case I'm wrong).

 

[Anttech]

No, it's not. Unless civilians were the target of the bombing, of course.

The American Army needs to be held better accountable of its miss-fire, friendly fire, badly trainned fire, whatever you want to call it... The Brits had more friendly fire deaths in the first stages of the Iraq war from the US than from Sadams army... I remember seeing John Simpson, almost get blown up by US planes that attacked his convoy, and of course there was the friendly fire incident with the Italian report Giuliana Sgrena who was released from being a hostage and almost died, and nothing happened to the soliders... I can understand the situation however. Pointless war, foregin land, undertrainned and under equipt soliders trying to "beat" an enemy that is unbeatable using force (just like Veitnam). An enemy that would prefer to kill themselfs and take out a few of you than live under the US Flag, or a Flag condoned by the US... Would make me seriously nevous...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2921807.stm

The Iraq war was a Bad idea...

 

[Hurkyl]

You have not given any reason why they used missiles to destroy the target and then opened fire with cannon?

For good reason: I have no idea. Since you seem intent on having me analyze it, could you help me out with a few links about describing what happened?

I was under the impression it was you who thought it was purely coincidental that a convoy happened to be on the spot when the bomber launched his attack against a group of civilians.

Ah. What I think, and what seems to be the popularly attributed motive, is that the bomber specifically wanted to kill civilians in the act of fraternizing with coalition forces.

Someone else brought it up before, but you didn't respond. Do you have any reason to think the suicide bomber did not intend to kill civilians? Personally, I cannot come up with a line of reasoning that would lead someone to have a reasonable doubt that the intent has been correctly assessed, let alone a plausible reason to deny it.

You are incorrect I have already addressed this point

It is fruitless (other than for propaganda purposes) to speculate on what the suicide bomber 'thought' as it is impossible to know as he is now dead; whereas it would be interesting to ask the pilots of the helicopters what was going through their minds after they had made 2 passes over the target saw it was surrounded by civilians and yet still opened fire.

Yet you still haven't answered my question... can you establish a reasonable doubt of the charge that the bomber was targetting civilians?

I haven't changed my tune one iota.

So you were lying when you said the following?

In this we agree as I have already stated unequivocally I find both actions equally repugnant and yes the horrific end is not ameliorated in the least by the bravery or cowardice of the attacker.

Does your first word "Yes" signify you do condemn all acts of savagery and murder no matter who commits them?

I am always uneasy about making universal statements, so I'll have to insist on qualifying this: I don't, at the moment, see a reason why I should not.

As for your counter question based on what you have said above I presume you are suggesting that this 'benefit of the doubt as to intent' is only to be afforded to the US forces and not to insurgents fighting an army of occupation.

Then you presume wrongly.

It seems that the neocons are not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces thus relinquishing the high moral ground they were trying to preach from.

Why do you think that neocons are preaching, and that they're not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces?


==== End of response to Art ====

Hurkyl, There is one thing you are overlooking, that passage and the actions that inspired it were enough to execute the 14 highest ranking people in Japan after the emperor.

I think the actions of the Japanese are what was enough for their execution -- the passage has nothing to do with it.

Bush et al, have used almost the exact same justification.

Maybe it is just too simple for you to understand, Hurkyl.

The fact it's too simple is the entire problem. There is nothing in your analogy that permits the condemnation of Japanese acts to be translated into a condemnation of coalition acts.

I wonder if Godwin's law applies when the Japanese are invoked, instead of Nazis... I'll have to do some research.

 

[Art]

For good reason: I have no idea. Since you seem intent on having me analyze it, could you help me out with a few links about describing what happened?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3652174.stm

Ah. What I think, and what seems to be the popularly attributed motive, is that the bomber specifically wanted to kill civilians in the act of fraternizing with coalition forces.

By popularly attributed motive you refer of course to the US propaganda. Now what was that you said about giving the benefit of the doubt re intent?

Yet you still haven't answered my question... can you establish a reasonable doubt of the charge that the bomber was targetting civilians?

The onus is on you to prove his primary target was civilians as it is your assertion. Comes under the innocent until proven guilty maxim.

So you were lying when you said the following?

Throwing insults around will only lead to a degeneration in the discussion, as a super mentor you should know better and should be setting an example.

I am always uneasy about making universal statements, so I'll have to insist on qualifying this: I don't, at the moment, see a reason why I should not.

You seem to have no problem in making universal statements attacking the insurgency or indeed whan supporting the US military. It appears you only have a problem when you realize that doing so will tar each side with the same brush.

Then you presume wrongly.

I won't call you a liar as you did me, I will simply refer you to your response above which directly contradicts this statement.

Why do you think that neocons are preaching

I say preaching because they expect readers of their posts to take everything on faith.

and that they're not prepared to condemn unequivocally atrocities committed by US forces?

Uh! because they haven't?

I wonder if Godwin's law applies when the Japanese are invoked, instead of Nazis... I'll have to do some research.

I wonder how long it will be before Godwin's law also applies to Bush and his administration?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I think the actions of the Japanese are what was enough for their execution -- the passage has nothing to do with it.

The fact it's too simple is the entire problem. There is nothing in your analogy that permits the condemnation of Japanese acts to be translated into a condemnation of coalition acts.

I wonder if Godwin's law applies when the Japanese are invoked, instead of Nazis... I'll have to do some research.

Hurkyl, then you display an ignorance of what a Class A War Criminal actually was.

Class A Crimes were and are reserved for the heads of state and are referred to as 'crimes against peace'.

I will think that you will also find that even Godwin's law is waved when the actual data involved is identical because we do have this nagging little thing in law which states precidence.

If you actually look at the testimony of the Tokyo trials, you will find that the 14 were executed for using false statements to insite their population into an illegal war. "Crimes against Peace"

A simple viewing of the Downing Street Memo and what it lays out for the creation of this war IS proof of that complicity on the part of the American and British Governments.

Don't you understand that?

The wording of the 'excuses' being almost identical is just an eerie and scary coincidence.

 

[Hurkyl]

By popularly attributed motive you refer of course to the US propaganda.

No, I mean by all the reports I have read, and everyone who has discussed the issue without taking a "But how can we possibly know what he was thinking?" attitude.

The onus is on you to prove his primary target was civilians as it is your assertion.

There are two primary pieces of evidence supporting this assertion. (Which wasn't mine, but given what I know, I support it)

First off, there is motive: civilians in the area were beginning to become friendly with the coalition troops.

Secondly, there is the act itself. What I've read suggests not only that the coalition vehicles had been in the area for a while, but they even formed stationary targets, giving plenty of opportunity for a strike.


This (or any other crime, incidentally) could certainly be explained away by an amazing string of coincidences, but I'm asking if there's cause for reasonable doubt.

Throwing insults around will only lead to a degeneration in the discussion, as a super mentor you should know better and should be setting an example.

I don't think I acted wrongly: report my post and bring in a third party if you want.

You've said the US act was worse, then in no uncertain terms you said you viewed them equally, then, in no uncertain terms, you said you found the US act worse. I repeat my query: were you lying when you made one of these statements?

You seem to have no problem in making universal statements attacking the insurgency or indeed whan supporting the US military

I don't?

I won't call you a liar as you did me, I will simply refer you to your response above which directly contradicts this statement.

It does?

I say preaching because they expect readers of their posts to take everything on faith.

Who is? Could you give examples?

Uh! because they haven't?

Who hasn't? And why does that mean they're not prepared to do so?

I wonder how long it will be before Godwin's law also applies to Bush and his administration?

That assumes that it will happen, doesn't it?


=== End of response to Art ===

Hurkyl, then you display an ignorance of what a Class A War Criminal actually was.

...

Don't you understand that?

You still missed my point. You can't conclude that the actions of the two parties are analogous just because some other aspect of the two parties is analogous.

 

[Art]

Here's an interesting new report by a US-UK non-gov't group on deaths of civilians in Iraq which runs contra to the US gov't propaganda in relation to insurgents prime targets being civilians;

Over 8,000 Iraqis killed in ’03 attack: NGO releases survey

BAGHDAD, July 19: US-led forces, guerillas and criminal gangs have killed nearly 25,000 Iraqi civilians, police, and army recruits since the war began in March 2003, according to a survey by a US-British non-government group.

Nearly half the deaths in the two years surveyed to March 2005 were in Baghdad, where a fifth of Iraq’s 25 million people live, according to media reports monitored by Iraq Body Count.

Of the total, nearly 37 per cent were killed by US-led forces, the group said.

The survey found that almost a third of civilian deaths – over 8,000 people – occurred during the invasion itself, from March 20 to May 1, 2003, when US-led forces carried out their ‘shock and awe’ bombing campaign on Baghdad.

In the first year after the invasion, around 6,000 civilians were killed, a number that nearly doubled in the second year, indicating a general increase in violence. The group said deaths caused by insurgents and criminals had risen steadily.

US-led forces were found to be chiefly responsible for deaths, with criminals a close second at 36 per cent, while guerillas accounted for a surprisingly small 9.5 per cent.

Note the 9.5% includes police and recruits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4696875.stm http://www.iraqdaily.com/

 

[The Smoking Man]

You still missed my point. You can't conclude that the actions of the two parties are analogous just because some other aspect of the two parties is analogous.

You seem to miss the point that there is but one crime above all others that has been comitted and that all other crimes are moot points.

Once you rule out the war itself as being legal, all other actions beyond that point are illegal when they are performed to support the initial crime.

That crime was originally penned as The Kellogg-Briand Pact and later re-stated in the Charter of the UN.

It was used to prosecute the Class A Criminals of WWII and has not been repealed.