News Legitimate targets of resistance?

[Art]

But hey, I'll even set that aside - let's assume murder: if a foreigner murders a family member of yours, would you start indiscriminantly killing people from that country? I can't think of a more archaic or barbaric way of thinking than the line of reasoning you are following.

I wish you'd pass that thought on to shrub. How many innocent deaths has he justified to date off the backs of the victims of 9/11?

 

[russ_watters]

I have said before that reasonable people can reasonably disagree and I try to operate on the assumption that people are reasonable until proven otherwise. I may have just found the first example of people who not only admit that they are unreasonable but actually are claiming that unreasonable is reasonable! This is the oddest thing I've ever seen in a discussion forum.

No, guys, though it may be understandable to be irrational in some instances, it is not ok and you should not make a conscious choice to be irrational.

 

[Art]

Art, make your point! Do you believe that or not! It is unbelievable that you would chastise me for holding an opinion when you refuse to even say what your opinion is!

Or maybe that's just it: by refusing to make points, much less defend them, maybe you're just demonstrating what TSM is saying is resonable: you are choosing to be irrational and you think that in the world we live in today that being irrational is acceptable.

As you missed it the first time I'll repeat my points for you in fact I'll even help you count them;

As to the US 'believing' it to be a military target (1) don't you think it's behoven on the military to ascertain the validity of a target rather than bomb it first and then watch the bodies being scraped up to see if their 'guess' was right? (2) And don't you think at the very least an apology should be forthcoming from the US government rather than the usual "I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing" Bart Simpson type denial?

(3) Your justifications for attrocites are pathetic.
(4) You and Hurkyl have demonstrated admirably the reason why so many ordinary people in the world are taking up arms against the USA.

There you go Russ 4 points you evidently missed.

 

[Art]

I have said before that reasonable people can reasonably disagree and I try to operate on the assumption that people are reasonable until proven otherwise. I may have just found the first example of people who not only admit that they are unreasonable but actually are claiming that unreasonable is reasonable! This is the oddest thing I've ever seen in a discussion forum.

No, guys, though it may be understandable to be irrational in some instances, it is not ok and you should not make a conscious choice to be irrational.

I presume from this you are not exercising your lack of reasonableness consciously then? But as your lack of reasonableness has been pointed out to you many times surely it would have registered on your conscious mind by now or are you unconsciously suppressing it on a subconscious level?

 

[russ_watters]

As you missed it the first time I'll repeat my points for you in fact I'll even help you count them;

There you go Russ 4 points you evidently missed.

All I'm asking for is a clarification, Art. "Points" 1 and 2 are questions, not statements. I think I can garner your actual opinion from the tone of the questions, but it'd be a lot simpler if you'd come right out and say what your opinion is, in statement form.

"Points" 3 and 4 are personal insults, not statements of your opinion of the issue itself.

edit: however, if you insist, I'll form them into statements on my own. From "point" 1 and other statements, I must infer that yout believe the US intentionally kills civilians. I'll even put it as a paraphrase: Art: 'The US intentionally kills civilians.' Is this a correct interpretation of your opinion?

 

[Burnsys]

All I'm asking for is a clarification, Art. "Points" 1 and 2 are questions, not statements. I think I can garner your actual opinion from the tone of the questions, but it'd be a lot simpler if you'd come right out and say what your opinion is, in statement form.

"Points" 3 and 4 are personal insults, not statements of your opinion of the issue itself.

edit: however, if you insist, I'll form them into statements on my own. From "point" 1 and other statements, I must infer that yout believe the US intentionally kills civilians. I'll even put it as a paraphrase: Art: 'The US intentionally kills civilians.' Is this a correct interpretation of your opinion?

I personaly think that us Intentionaly kill civilinas, may be it's not his priority, but when they are bombing, let's say the truks where they thougth saddam was traveling, or other targets, they know they are going to kill civilians (even if they are not the target) and they still do it. so YES, they kill civilians intentionaly.
You has been in the army so you should know, (and i am asking this to you)
When the army plans a city take over. or a bombing. do they calculate the estimated civilians casualties before starting the operations?

 

[russ_watters]

Art, I know you think you are being clever and by you condescending tone and insults, you probably think you're smarter than average here, but the real reason you aren't getting a lot of support is people here see right through you. This board leans pretty heavily to the left, so it says a lot when people come out of the woodwork to raise the BS flag on you.

Argument by inuendo is the most dishonest of your underhanded debate tactics because beyond just allowing you to avoid justifying your assertions, it allows you to even deny making them. That way you can spend all your time attacking other people and never actually make a point and prove it. You're really not fooling anyone, Art. That tactic is not as clever as you think it is. It is quite transparent.

 

[Art]

Art, I know you think you are being clever and by you condescending tone and insults, you probably think you're smarter than average here

smarter than average here? I have no idea nor any way of formulating an opinion on this. Smarter than you? Indubitably

but the real reason you aren't getting a lot of support is people here see right through you.

:zzz: Back to the 'my gang's bigger than your gang' childish rhetoric.

This board leans pretty heavily to the left

That rather depends on where you think the centre is.

so it says a lot when people come out of the woodwork to raise the BS flag on you.

Are you referring to yourself in the 3rd party plural here?

Argument by inuendo is the most dishonest of your underhanded debate tactics because beyond just allowing you to avoid justifying your assertions, it allows you to even deny making them. That way you can spend all your time attacking other people and never actually make a point and prove it.

That's hilarious. A personal attack on me disguised as a personal attack by me.

You're really not fooling anyone, Art. That tactic is not as clever as you think it is. It is quite transparent.

Very machiavellian Russ. However have you considered the possibility it's a lot simpler than that? and that I simply 'say what I mean and I mean what I say'.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Your first reponse was:

Could you just please come out and say what you believe: do you believe that the US was intentionally killing civilians?

I keep pointing out to you that the US launched an air strike against a convoy of trucks carrying sheep after hostilities had ended. For a person who goes ahead and adds words and subtracts words from the remainer of my post to manipulate the outcome of my other conclusions, you seem particularly obstinate on this point. I have rarely seen sheep armed, have you?

Take whatever the worst estimate you want. www.iraqbodycount.org for example, is an anti-US site that doesn't distinguish between civilians killed by the US and civilians killed by the terrorists. Its high-end estimate is about 26,000. The miltiary death toll is tougher but is certainly in the tens of thousands and possibly as much as 100,000. Pick any similar war of conquest in history and compare the raw numbers and rates: Korea, Vietnam -- WWII?

Russ ... You REALLY do not want to play the numbers like that. The war went from March 20, 2003 until May 3, 2003. Do you really want to compare the numbers over a 45 day period to the numbers killed in ANY war in history?

March 2002

When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."

____________________________________________________________

A U.S. officer aboard the US aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, described the use of 2,000 lb cluster bombs dropped by B-52 bombers: "A 2,000 lb. bomb, no matter where you drop it, is a significant emotional event for anyone within a square mile."

____________________________________________________________

"When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government, they're aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies.

When they put bombs in cars and kill people, they're uncivilized killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people, we're upholding civilized values. When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking against terror."

____________________________________________________________

Three British soldiers sent home after protesting at civilian deaths

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday March 31, 2003
The Guardian

Three British soldiers in Iraq have been ordered home after objecting to the conduct of the war. It is understood they have been sent home for protesting that the war is killing innocent civilians.

The three soldiers - including a private and a technician - are from 16 Air Assault Brigade which is deployed in southern Iraq. Its task has been to protect oilfields.

___________________________________________________________

Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq

Preliminary reports suggest casualties well above the Gulf War.

By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD – Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country.

None of the local and foreign researchers were willing to speak for the record, however, until their tallies are complete.

Such a range would make the Iraq war the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that US forces have fought since Vietnam.

Though it is still too early for anything like a definitive estimate, the surveyors warn, preliminary reports from hospitals, morgues, mosques, and homes point to a level of civilian casualties far exceeding the Gulf War, when 3,500 civilians are thought to have died.

But I was actually talking about you: You said you would choose to be irrational! That's even more absurd than the terrorists being irrational - at least they have an excuse.

You are a scream. Where do the words "you said" and the remainder of the above sentence bear any relationship to what WAS said. How about leaving what 'I' said up to me. You want to QUOTE me then do so but do not be so juvinile as to say that I would CHOOSE to be irrational. I told you the result of what happens when you kill my family in front of me.

Oh, Nicely done. Are we supposed to bow in awe at how you whittled my actual words down to this:

if a foreigner murders a family member of yours, would you start indiscriminantly killing people from that country? I can't think of a more archaic or barbaric way of thinking than the line of reasoning you are following.

First you add words to what I say and then you start to subtract them from what I say. Why don't you just throw in a few extra paragraphs from Mein Kampf and demonize me completely and have done with it?

Then we get to this:

Yes! In the civilized world, such behavior is simply unacceptable.

Followed by:

That's even more absurd than the terrorists being irrational - at least they have an excuse.

Clarification please. Does this mean that the people of NYC were irrational in their reaction to 9/11 and that the terrorists 'had an excuse'.?

It was after all, this very sentiment that Bush used to take the momentum generated in Afghanistan and move the front completely to Iraq. The REST of the world WAS rational and saw through the lies and didn't follow you inot war.

Let's look at this 'Coalition of the Willing' for a moment.

Had the USA failed to use the 'irrationality' of the US people and congress to enter into Iraq and had follow legal procedures, just what would the outcome have been?

My estimates put the members of the 'Coalition of the Willing' at about 40 votes for invasion vs. 151 nay votes.

Are you telling me that this is now 'rational'?

Go ahead. Rationalize those numbers, please.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I especially love this technique, Russ:

Could you just please come out and say what you believe: do you believe that the US was intentionally killing civilians?

Followed in the same post by:

Ok, so you're saying you are of the belief that we are intentionally killing civilians? Speaking of evidence, do you have any evidence of that?

Is this a technique you have patented?

Is this a new form of debate that none of us have come across before?

How would you describe that, Russ, "Ask the question. Answer the Question. Then, criticize the answer."

I'm dumbfounded that you actually think you can get away with that.

 

[honestrosewater]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned targeting ideas? (Or did someone and I just missed it?)

 

[russ_watters]

I especially love this technique, Russ:

Followed in the same post by:

Is this a technique you have patented?

Is this a new form of debate that none of us have come across before?

How would you describe that, Russ, "Ask the question. Answer the Question. Then, criticize the answer."

I'm dumbfounded that you actually think you can get away with that.

Its not a "technique" its an honest attemt to figure out what he actually means. I'm forced to do that because he refuses to say what he actually means.

If you want to just fling insults and rhetoric and refuse to actually present a position, much less an argument, I'm forced to argue both sides of it at the same time in an attempt to have a reasonable discussion. You can easily raise the level of the argument by choosing to actually state and support your position. It really is up to you.

Our arguments so far have gone something like this:

Me: In my opinion, blue is the best color.
You/Art: Oh, is blue really better than green?
Me: Well I think so - but do you prefer green?
You/Art: Stop putting words in my mouth!

It really is pointless.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm forced to argue both sides of it at the same time in an attempt to have a reasonable discussion.

You know, that is the second time in as many days I have seen you use that argument and it still doesn't fly.

I did, in fact give you a specific example of Americans deliberately firing on civillians. I stated it three times in the story of the 'sheep convoy' reputedly carrying Saddam.

I then offered you proof in the form of numerous quotes from various sources.

What you seem so upset about is that I have given you no point of attack in the way that I stated it. I anticipated your defence and cut you off.

Your answer then becomes to remove the men from the board and to reposition them as you see fit so that you can get your argument out.

I say again, I will choose to present my argument as I see fit. It is not up to you to anticipate my reactions or change my words in any way shape or form.

I also note that you did not address anything that I presented other than the way in which you chose to argue my side as well as your own in yet an increasing frequency of ad hominem attacks on all who post here in opposition to you.

You will note that when you seemingly come up with statements that are contradictory, I choose to ask you for clarification eg.:

Clarification please. Does this mean that the people of NYC were irrational in their reaction to 9/11 and that the terrorists 'had an excuse'.?

I DIDN'T choose to state an argument FOR you and then declare it unacceptable.

Neither did you answer my request for clarification.

 

[Art]

Russ to put you out of your misery I will answer your question but first read this;

...In the course of all this, six American soldiers were wounded, including two of the Bradley crewmen, who were quickly rescued and evacuated leaving the wrecked vehicle behind. Later, a crowd gathered, including children; the black and yellow banner of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Tawhid and Jihad terrorist group was brought out; members of the Arab media appeared to do TV reports; time passed – three hours according to the BBC – and then two American helicopters returned, made several passes over the vehicle with the black banner by now stuffed in the Bradley's gun barrel and the guerrilla fighters evidently long gone.

At that point, according to Patrick J. McDonnell of the Los Angeles Times, the helicopter pilots let loose a barrage of "seven rockets and 30 high-caliber machine-gun rounds onto a crowded Baghdad street," an action American officials later deemed "an appropriate response." The vehicle was pulverized and thirteen people, evidently mainly bystanders including a girl, died and many more were wounded. Most important, in terms of the attention the incident has received, Mazen Tomeizi, a Palestinian producer for the al-Arabiya satellite network of Dubai was killed in the attack while on camera, his blood spattering the lens, and Seif Fouad, a Reuters cameraman, was wounded. The scene of Tomeizi dying, while crying out, "Seif, Seif! I'm going to die. I'm going to die," which briefly made primetime news in the U.S., was shown over and over again on Arab networks, to local and regional outrage.

No I do not think the US gov't has a policy to kill civilians as a goal in itself. I do think however that they are not not in the least concerned if there are civilian deaths whilst they pursue even the flimsiest of military objectives as in the example above and those quoted earlier.

It's a kind of institutional racism where from the top down there is an unspoken prejudice which creates a belief that foreign civilians lives have less value than american civilians. If Iraqi civilian lives were valued on an equal basis with american civilians do you not think military planners would make very sure of the legitimacy of their targets before ordering in air strikes? And do you not think where there is another way to achieve a military objective that does not cause the lives of innocent civilians they would take it?
I also believe that the shrub administration's refusal to ever accept reponsibility or to apologise or to even admit they have done anything wrong translates at a local level to some members of the military sometimes commiting war crimes as they know their commanders will turn a blind eye.

As I have now clarified my position unequivocally will you please do likewise.

 

[Burnsys]

This case has been discused in a previous thread, Those who defended the actions of the US army argued that it was the civilians fault for being around the destroyed vehicle..

 

[Hurkyl]

You and Hurkyl have demonstrated admirably the reason why so many ordinary people in the world are taking up arms against the USA.

Which is what?

=== end of response to Art's post ===

I personaly think that us Intentionaly kill civilinas, may be it's not his priority, but when they are bombing, let's say the truks where they thougth saddam was traveling, or other targets, they know they are going to kill civilians (even if they are not the target) and they still do it. so YES, they kill civilians intentionaly.

None of us are trying to argue that military action does not risk civilian casualties.

There's a difference between civilian lives being risked because military action is being taken, and military action being taken because it risks civilian lives.

 

[Townsend]

No I do not think the US gov't has a policy to kill civilians as a goal in itself. I do think however that they are not not in the least concerned if there are civilian deaths whilst they pursue even the flimsiest of military objectives as in the example above and those quoted earlier.

Perhaps that is true, but I am pretty sure that the American military is much more caring and cautious than most if not all other countries militaries.

It's a kind of institutional racism where from the top down there is an unspoken prejudice which creates a belief that foreign civilians lives have less value than american civilians.

There is no racism on the battle field, you kill or are killed not based on the color of your skin but based on what side you are fighting for. War means you do what is in the best interest of your side and not the side of the enemy. What I find funny is that you are making a claim that can be applied to every country in the world. If you want to hold the USA liable for it you had better hold the rest of world liable for it too. But to put it in better perspective, what country has sacrifice more its peoples lives and money to save the lives and money of people in other countries on the other side of the world that more or less will hate that country either way?

 

[Townsend]

Your justifications for attrocites are pathetic.

So what of the atrocities of the rest of the world during every single war through out history? In comparison I think this war has had far less in the way of civilian harm than just about any previous major war. Its not perfect but the USA has led what is probably the most humane large scale war in the history of the world. Notice I said probably, since there is no way of knowing this to be a fact.

 

[Townsend]

If Iraqi civilian lives were valued on an equal basis with american civilians do you not think military planners would make very sure of the legitimacy of their targets before ordering in air strikes? And do you not think where there is another way to achieve a military objective that does not cause the lives of innocent civilians they would take it?

I believe that the US lives up to that standard better than any other country in the world. If this was France's, Canada's or any other country's war I am sure that the military would pay much less regard for human life than what we presently do. I say this because of the accountability we have in our military. For example I question if the Abu G. prison thing would have never even come out if this war was being fought by other countries.

Regards

 

[The Smoking Man]

So what of the atrocities of the rest of the world during every single war through out history? In comparison I think this war has had far less in the way of civilian harm than just about any previous major war. Its not perfect but the USA has led what is probably the most humane large scale war in the history of the world. Notice I said probably, since there is no way of knowing this to be a fact.

It went for 45 days!

It was illegal.

History doesn't enter into it since world law changed with the addition of new legislation in the last century along with the respective creations of the League of Nations followed by the United Nations the charter of which states:

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The USA violated 3 through 7 of these principals.

7, in fact, prohibits 'Regime Change' as a solution.

TREATY PROVIDING FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY
ARTICLE I
The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

ARTICLE II
The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

ARTICLE III
The present treaty shall be ratified by the high contracting parties Named in the preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington.

This treaty shall, when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other Powers of the world. Every instrument evidencing the adherence of a Power shall be deposited at Washington and the treaty shall immediately upon such deposit become effective as between the Power thus adhering and the other Powers parties hereto.

All in violation.

Geneva Conventions:

First Geneva Convention
Second Geneva Convention
Third Geneva Convention
Forth Geneva Convention

Violated on multiple levels.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I believe that the US lives up to that standard better than any other country in the world. If this was France's, Canada's or any other country's war I am sure that the military would pay much less regard for human life than what we presently do. I say this because of the accountability we have in our military. For example I question if the Abu G. prison thing would have never even come out if this war was being fought by other countries.

What you think is irrelevant considering that the information did not come out as an act of your government but as a response to the media seeking a response from Rumsfeld prior to their publication of the evidence... The same evidence Rumsfeld had been given in January of that year and did not act upon.

One of his first acts in response was to ban mobile phones with cameras, digital cameras and lift access to the internet from troops stationed in Iraq.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Notice I said probably, since there is no way of knowing this to be a fact.

PS. And a lot of that is as a result of the banning of casualty data from the Defence Department and the harnessing of Media in the war zone.

Foreign media was fired upon with Al Jazeera (Created with assistance of the BBC) sustaining casualties from American Fire.

 

[Townsend]

PS. And a lot of that is as a result of the banning of casualty data from the Defence Department and the harnessing of Media in the war zone.

Foreign media was fired upon with Al Jazeera (Created with assistance of the BBC) sustaining casualties from American Fire.

I agree there is room for improvement as there will always be. Accountability should be a high priority for the military and I hope that in the coming years we will see that area improve, not just in the US but everywhere. As it is however the US has made a lot of progress in that area and I see no reason to be it will not continue.

I also agree that the accountability of the US is due in large part to media. If it were not for media pressure a lot of things would not come out, but at least we have freedom of press so some of it does come out.

 

[Townsend]

What you think is irrelevant considering that the information did not come out as an act of your government but as a response to the media seeking a response from Rumsfeld prior to their publication of the evidence... The same evidence Rumsfeld had been given in January of that year and did not act upon.

One of his first acts in response was to ban mobile phones with cameras, digital cameras and lift access to the internet from troops stationed in Iraq.

I was not basing my point on only one example but just giving the example. However the fact that the media brought it out does not make it worthless. In fact it is one of the ways in which we keep our government in check here in the US. As long as there is a story to print the press will print it, so Uncle Sam has to keep on his toes.

And in a sense, freedom of press is an act of the United States governments actions since is it something that the government is there to protect.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I agree there is room for improvement as there will always be. Accountability should be a high priority for the military and I hope that in the coming years we will see that area improve, not just in the US but everywhere. As it is however the US has made a lot of progress in that area and I see no reason to be it will not continue.

I also agree that the accountability of the US is due in large part to media. If it were not for media pressure a lot of things would not come out, but at least we have freedom of press so some of it does come out.

Unfortunately, 'comming out' and the world seeing actions against offenders seems a trifle unbalanced.

When I see a clip of an American soldier shooting a wounded, dying, enemy combattant who had been lying there since the previous night's attack, I can't help but wonder where he left his copy of the Geneva Conventions?

But then, to make matters worse, he was judged to have acted within the rules of combat by a military tribunal.

Do you honestly see progress being made when you compare media and footage from Vietnam as compared to Iraq?

When the 5th estate is shackled to a unit and forced to shoot 'mom and pop shots' I can't help but think I might have been missing something and, as I pointed out, foreign media experienced fire from American Troops.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I was not basing my point on only one example but just giving the example. However the fact that the media brought it out does not make it worthless. In fact it is one of the ways in which we keep our government in check here in the US. As long as there is a story to print the press will print it, so Uncle Sam has to keep on his toes.

And in a sense, freedom of press is an act of the United States governments actions since is it something that the government is there to protect.

Someone much wiser than me once said that 'Justice must not only be done but it must be SEEN to be done'.

 

[Townsend]

When I see a clip of an American soldier shooting a wounded, dying, enemy combattant who had been lying there since the previous night's attack, I can't help but wonder where he left his copy of the Geneva Conventions?

But then, to make matters worse, he was judged to have acted within the rules of combat by a military tribunal.

I saw that video too

I do think it has been a major improvement since Vietnam and I believe the military will continue to make improvements. I didn't know the the whole story behind that video and I really don't know how a military tribunal judges those types of things. It seems like he should have been disciplined but to what extent I am not certain.

But that is kind of besides the point, after all we are still being accountable. It might not be to the degree that you would like it to be but never the less it is there. I think the key is to have some patience and give the military a chance to make corrections. If after this war the military has not made improvements then there will be much more cause for alarm.

 

[The Smoking Man]

But that is kind of besides the point, after all we are still being accountable. It might not be to the degree that you would like it to be but never the less it is there. I think the key is to have some patience and give the military a chance to make corrections. If after this war the military has not made improvements then there will be much more cause for alarm.

BESIDE the point?

I thought it WAS the point!

Here we had an American Soldier caught on tape executing the wounded and unarmed.

The price he paid for violating the Geneva Conventions ... Naadaa.

You will also not that in the subsequent report issued on Abu Ghraib that there was a previous incident in another prison less than 6 months prior.

We never heard about this except as an aside however they did mention what happened to the people involved there ... they were just sent home.

That's kind of a dangerous president to set with a bunch of disillusioned people in fear of their lives.

I am sure that with a lot of their slow moving little minds they came up with the equation 'me + abused prisoners = sent home'.

Then what was ever done about the ICRC deception that was mentioned there?

Who got it in the neck?

What of the BBC report on the mass grave as a result of shipping prisoners in shipping containers across deserts?

What I see most of the time is someone like Rumsfeld categorically denying any allegation on the front page while it is front page news and then admitting it 3 or 4 weeks later when it hits the 10th ... Koran abuse is a good example.

No, from what I have seen, there is more than one front in this war and the American Administration has learned to fight one war with exemplary merit ... The first casualty of war is the truth.

You have to wonder what is going on when the US administration is applying for exemptions from the Geneva Conventions (Unsuccessfully mind you).

 

[Townsend]

BESIDE the point?

I thought it WAS the point!

Why do you think that? From where I am sitting it is not the point at all.

The point is is that you are seeing it! Your country is up to no good as well but you don't see it! EVERY country is up to no good all the time but you don't hear about it and there is no accountability! (well you do to some degree but not to the same degree that you do with the US government)

You can point facts out and make the case you are making because of our accountablitly. If it was not for the US going into Iraq I doubt that all the oil for food scandals would have surfaced. You should be happy that this kind of information is availble to you so the public can hold the government accountable. That is the point, not the ruling on a single case! Thats like saying the justice system is all crap because one innocent man was convicted or because one murderer walked away. And by the way, in this country everyone has a right to a defense and as such that man was able to defend himself and for whatever reason he got away with murder, that is not the fault the federal government, that is part of the price you pay for freedom.

Regards

 

[Townsend]

Here we had an American Soldier caught on tape executing the wounded and unarmed.

The price he paid for violating the Geneva Conventions ... Naadaa.

I don't know the letter of the law and (no offense) but I doubt you do either. I think he should have gotten something but that is ill informed. Perhaps if we both knew more about the case and the proceedings we would both have a different perspective on this issue.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I don't know the letter of the law and (no offense) but I doubt you do either. I think he should have gotten something but that is ill informed. Perhaps if we both knew more about the case and the proceedings we would both have a different perspective on this issue.

Actually, I know quite a bit about the case since it was something that caught my interest.

It was also something that was very well documented by the journalist on the scene on his own web site.

Excuses were given that the woulded were often booby trapped and this was why things were done in this way.

Well, if that IS the case, you might just as well throw out the Geneva conventions all together and randomly shoot all dead bodies from a safe distance as you would abandond packages at an airport.

Forget you and they are human.

Forget human rights.

 

[Hurkyl]

Sigh, this thread was supposed to be about actions of the resistance, not YATFRAUS. (Yet Another Thread For Ranting About the US) Didn't even manage to last two pages.

 

[Art]

Sigh, this thread was supposed to be about actions of the resistance, not YATFRAUS. (Yet Another Thread For Ranting About the US) Didn't even manage to last two pages.

Back to the old 'You're all just anti-american anyway' childish rant eh Hurkyl. Personally I thought it was peculiar that you started a post asking about legitimate targets for resistance fighters and when I replied with a list of 8 you showed no interest at all and in fact ignored my post.

So what were you really looking for?

If I were a cynic I might think your aim was to develop a lop sided discussion on attrocities commited in Iraq.

 

[Art]

As I have now clarified my position unequivocally will you please do likewise.

Well Russ, I'm waiting...

 

[The Smoking Man]

Sigh, this thread was supposed to be about actions of the resistance, not YATFRAUS. (Yet Another Thread For Ranting About the US) Didn't even manage to last two pages.

Funny, I thought it was about legitimate targets of resistance ie. who in the resistance is a legitimate target and how are they recognized from civillians.

Besides, what is wrong with ragging on about the people who actually committed the crime of invasion in the first place?

 

[Hurkyl]

Personally I thought it was peculiar that you started a post asking about legitimate targets for resistance fighters and when I replied with a list of 8 you showed no interest at all and in fact ignored my post.

I was very happy with the first page or so. The only two points on your list of 8 I would think about contending were "senior political figures" and "infrastructure useful to the enemy", but quetzalcoatl9 had already taken a much more liberal viewpoint. (any governmant official or piece of infrastructure) Although not convinced of their legitimacy, I was not able to write a rebuttal with which I was happy.

Besides, what is wrong with ragging on about the people who actually committed the crime of invasion in the first place?

Because you can get that in just about any thread here. I don't mind so much, since the discussion had already fizzled out, I just thought it was telling that, upon ressurection, it was so quicky steered back to the same old topic, desipte the original intention to specifically avoid that.

(P.S.: of course, I disagree with your characterization)

 

[The Smoking Man]

Why do you think that? From where I am sitting it is not the point at all.

The point is is that you are seeing it! Your country is up to no good as well but you don't see it! EVERY country is up to no good all the time but you don't hear about it and there is no accountability! (well you do to some degree but not to the same degree that you do with the US government)

Funny, I thought that was our location and not our nationality that was posted to the left under 'location'.

You can point facts out and make the case you are making because of our accountablitly. If it was not for the US going into Iraq I doubt that all the oil for food scandals would have surfaced. You should be happy that this kind of information is availble to you so the public can hold the government accountable... yadda yadda yadda ... that is not the fault the federal government, that is part of the price you pay for freedom.

Well, I am so happy that so many people died in Iraq to expose the 'oil for food' program. Is this one of the new Bush defenses against his violations of the Geneva Conventions and invasion of Iraq. (I must admit, the old ones are getting a bit tired )

Seems to me that with the number of times I have heard the 'that's is part of the price you pay for freedom' ending to a rant, freedom isn't about freedom at all.The price become the loss of freedom.

In fact, if you add all those little 'parts' together, you end up with fascism.

 

[Townsend]

Funny, I thought that was our location and not our nationality that was posted to the left under 'location'.

Excuse me for that, I guess I don't really know what country you are a citizen of but it does not matter, they are all wrong since all governments make mistakes and I will never trust any government that goes unchecked. My point about the oil for food scandal was not to say that it some how justifies anything but instead it was to show that other countries and world organizations don't have the same kind of accountability that the United States does. Look at the corruption that happens when power goes unchecked!

Now, I have no reason to believe that the United States has done any more wrongs in the last few years than any other country in the world. Why do you suppose that we are not arguing over the atrocities of country X as much or as often as we are arguing about what the US did? It is not because country X has not done anything that is news worthy; it is because country X keeps a lid on things by restricting and controlling the press. It is because country X goes uncheck by its people or itself.

If you call freedom of press fascism then you need a dictionary because that is what I was talking about when I said freedom and that is not what fascism is.

Well, I am so happy that so many people died in Iraq to expose the 'oil for food' program. Is this one of the new Bush defenses against his violations of the Geneva Conventions and invasion of Iraq.

You are way to smart to start inferring I said things that I never said so please, let us keep from going there. If I say something I will own up to it, I have no problem with that not to mention you can always just quote me.

Regards

 

[The Smoking Man]

You are way to smart to start inferring I said things that I never said so please, let us keep from going there. If I say something I will own up to it, I have no problem with that not to mention you can always just quote me.

Point taken. It had just happened to me so much as of late taht I thought it must be a standard.

 

[Art]

Its not a "technique" its an honest attemt to figure out what he actually means. I'm forced to do that because he refuses to say what he actually means.

If you want to just fling insults and rhetoric and refuse to actually present a position, much less an argument, I'm forced to argue both sides of it at the same time in an attempt to have a reasonable discussion. You can easily raise the level of the argument by choosing to actually state and support your position. It really is up to you.

Our arguments so far have gone something like this:

Me: In my opinion, blue is the best color.
You/Art: Oh, is blue really better than green?
Me: Well I think so - but do you prefer green?
You/Art: Stop putting words in my mouth!

It really is pointless.

Russ I obliged you and answered your question in unequivocal terms. I also requested you to reciprocate and do the same for me and yet you are strangely silent despite a couple of reminders from me.
For someone so desperate to have this debate that you went so far as to make up arguments on my behalf for you to knock down it seems peculiar that when you have my actual thoughts you do not respond.

edit: Following your censorship of my posts re you on another thread please do not bother to respond to this or any other item I post. I have absolutely NOTHING further to discuss with you.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ I obliged you and answered your question in unequivocal terms. I also requested you to reciprocate and do the same for me and yet you are strangely silent despite a couple of reminders from me.

Quite frankly, I haven't looked at this thread in 2 days. I did not expect you to actually state your opinion. Here it is:

No I do not think the US gov't has a policy to kill civilians as a goal in itself. I do think however that they are not not in the least concerned if there are civilian deaths whilst they pursue even the flimsiest of military objectives as in the example above and those quoted earlier.

I thank you for clarifying and do not wish to discuss it further with you at this time.

 

[Art]

Deleted: by ART

It seems this is how you win debates on this forum...