UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (52) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 176662  
Subject: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/16/2006 5:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 47
It seems some posters on this board have bought into the belief that American and NATO coalition forces don't care about collateral damage and, in fact, will attack despite it. What these posters should realize that at part of al-Qaeda's (and most ME terrorist groups) set up their meeting in densely populated areas or in civilian homes that, if attacked, will result in deaths of women and children.

Saddam Hussein did this www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/apparatus/crafting.html and the link shows how it's done: keep your military assets, including personnel, in populated areas. This not only dissuades attack but also, should there be attack, deaths of 'the innocent' which is then blamed on the attacker.

If you look at almost all results of attacks on terrorists you will find there is inevitable death of 'innocents'. It is a ploy the terrorists use constantly to swing world opinion. It is the reason the Intifada used children to start an attack throwing stones – and having pictures of armed Israeli soldiers facing teens throwing rocks.

Are these 'innocents' dead. Of course they are. Yet who put them in harm's way? Who chose to have clandestine meetings in populated apartment buildings? Who made sure their military assets were surrounded by 'innocents'?

It's a guarantee there will be deaths of civilians not because the American and coalition forces seek out civilians (yet that's part of the lie of 'collateral damage) but that these people are part of a defense strategy and, if killed, part of a disinformation strategy designed to show the 'brutality' of those who attack.

For those who think this is an apology for collateral deaths thing again. That women and children are killed is abominable – yet upon whom in the abomination but those who deliberately use women and children as shields?

I've said for a long time that the war on terrorism is also a media war seeking to undercut the will to continue it. Part of this is showing how the war on terror is a war on women and children. This is also a part of the orchestration.

Also guaranteed is that the next Israeli/American/NATO/coalition attack will have 'innocents' in the fatalities. Not emphasized in the attack that a terrorist leader is killed but that the families he used to shield himself died in the attack.

As I said, some posters here buy into the belief the black hats are right and that innocents are targeted. They are not. However, they are being used as a means to condemn any attack against terrorism.

Flame away if it's your bag.

MichaelR


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: UrsulaB Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136537 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/16/2006 5:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
"I've said for a long time that the war on terrorism is also a media war seeking to undercut the will to continue it. Part of this is showing how the war on terror is a war on women and children. This is also a part of the orchestration."


Thank you for these wise words.
It is a media war at the same time as people shoot.
And if certain parts of our populations do not wake up from their dreams, they will contiue to fall into the trap terrorists have laid out for them with the average media as a helper.

Women and children are often the forced targets.
About this kind of "collateral damage" the media (and terrorists) seldom talk.

It happened in sunni Waziristan (right where the CIA intended to kill Zawahiri in an airstrike and where the death of women and children is being loudly deplored by fishy Pakistanis and our media):

http://www.dawn.com/2006/01/15/nat28.htm

"FAISALABAD, Jan 14: A husband shot dead his wife on Friday night after her ultrasound report revealed that she was going to give birth to their fourth daughter at Chak 64-GB of Jaranwala town. Reports said Muhammad Sadique had three daughters from one Kishar Bibi during their five years of marriage. When his wife got pregnant for the fourth time, Sadique took her to a private hospital and got conducted her ultrasound. As the report revealed that the woman was going to deliver another girl, the husband became infuriated and opened fire on her. She died on the spot. The husband managed to escape."

Why is the death of this woman and her unborn child not aired and deplored?

IGNORANCE and double standards reign supreme - despite the internet and knowlege attainable for everybody of good faith.


U





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoeChristmas Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136553 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/16/2006 6:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
For those who think this is an apology for collateral deaths thing again. That women and children are killed is abominable – yet upon whom in the abomination but those who deliberately use women and children as shields?

I don't think they were deliberately using women and children as shields in this case (assuming any al Qaeda were present), although I admit it certainly is part of their strategy. Which is why it is a war crime, and should be condemned. Just like torture. As I recall, you seem to be quite selective in which war crimes you call an abomination.

In this particular case, I'm sure these women and children were not used intentionally as human shields. Because senior level al Qaeda members know very well we would bomb them anyway. We have already done it many, many times. Innocent bystanders did not stop us from bombing Saddam Hussein at the start of the war, for example. So top al Qaeda officials do not think sleeping in a house with children is a real deterrent.

--JC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136573 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/16/2006 7:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 21
In this particular case, I'm sure these women and children were not used intentionally as human shields. Because senior level al Qaeda members know very well we would bomb them anyway. We have already done it many, many times. Innocent bystanders did not stop us from bombing Saddam Hussein at the start of the war, for example. So top al Qaeda officials do not think sleeping in a house with children is a real deterrent.

--JC


Senior members of al-Qaeda know they are hunted men and are well aware the hunt closes on them so each meet is done in populated areas where there will be civilian casualties.

So what is the focus of the attacks on al-Qaeda? The innocents? You would seem to think so since that's what you note strongly in your posts. So then are those who plan the assaults and car bombings 'collateral damage' to the deaths of the innocents placed in harm's way? It seems that way to me.

You say that the killing of innocents creates justification for enlargement of terrorism. You're being drawn in hook, line and sinker into al-Qaeda's public relations ploy to emphasize the collateral damage as if it were the main thrust of the attack. It's a ploy to justify the terrorists' actions as in, “We respond to the atrocities visited on us by those who kill our women and children.”

The ploy works even though it is now predictable. Take any Israeli attack and there is always – repeat always – the death of a woman and/or child. Every time without exception. Why don't you ask yourself why this is? Because Israel targets women and children or because having women and children as casualties boosts the claims of the terrorists those attacking are unleashed, primal anger monsters.

The aim of terrorists, particularly al-Qaeda (it is a part of bin Laden's thesis), is that war is lost by the side that loses its will to fight. So, to sap will, al-Qaeda uses the collateral damage (created to have collateral damage) shaped as inhumanity.

What you seem to fail to grasp is this is a set up. People are placed in harm's way so they will be harmed. But what of those who deliberately create an environment in which it is virtual there will be the deaths of civilians?

The ploy works because we do not want the deaths of civilians so we're vulnerable to censure. We differentiate but terrorists don't: we're all the enemy. To them there are no innocents. We do differentiate and they use that as a PR ploy against us but never against themselves.

Think for a moment: why does Hamas fire rockets from populated areas? Because there's no open areas or that retaliation will include the death of civilians and these deaths used as a ploy?

Bet you any money the next attack on Afghani al-Qaeda senior personnel will have a component of civilian deaths (whether they took place or not) and these deaths will be used, by some, as one more piece of evidence against those who took out the leaders as brutal, uncaring monsters.

And you'll buy it.

MichaelR




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136585 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/16/2006 8:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
MichaelRead,
"As I said, some posters here buy into the belief the black hats are right and that innocents are targeted. They are not. However, they are being used as a means to condemn any attack against terrorism.

Flame away if it's your bag."


Very nice post. I don't think many who oppose the war will understand what you said but it is a very nice post.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136593 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/16/2006 8:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 24
JoeChristmas,
"In this particular case, I'm sure these women and children were not used intentionally as human shields. Because senior level al Qaeda members know very well we would bomb them anyway. We have already done it many, many times. Innocent bystanders did not stop us from bombing Saddam Hussein at the start of the war, for example. So top al Qaeda officials do not think sleeping in a house with children is a real deterrent."

You talk as if you personally know these Al Qaeda leaders and know what is in their minds. Let's think like a terrorist for a second.

We know America lost its will to fight in Vietnam. The war there was not lost because we did not have the capability to win. The war was lost for many reasons but primarily because America no longer had the will to fight it. Let's look at Beruit. The lessons they learned there is they merely have to dole out a few casualties and America loses the stomach for it.

How about the lesson in Somalia? They kill 18 rangers and guess what? We run. How about all the other lessons they learned when they attacked and we did virtually nothing? What lesson did they learn there? We don't have the will to do what needs to be done and they get away with it. One or two operatives may go down but they have literally thousands more willing to die for the cause.

Now, let's look at how the two sides value life. Westerners view life as the most sacred thing there is. You do not take even one life God willing. How do they view it? They can harvest thousands of souls merely by convincing young stupid men they will be remembered always, travel immediately to heaven, do not pass go and collect your 72 virgins. Schweet deal if you ask me! Life is not sacred. Only Allah is sacred and nothing else matters but service to Allah. Life is not a gift to be cherished but a tool. You are nothing but a vessel meant to serve. A rock is more precious because Allah created it.

Given all of that, what do you do as a terrorist? Do you have your meetings with lots of innocents in the next room? Yes. Why? Because their lives are nothing and even in death....especially in death....they can serve your cause. They know from American TV, movies and news that Americans are squeamish and very against innocent lives lost. They do not value life. They know an American is going to at least think twice before bombing an innocent. They may still do it but the chances go way down. If they do, a few vessels were smashed but the world will be outraged and this too furthers the cause immeasurably. There is no greater gift than the one the enemy gives you in their minds. Dead innocents means little to nothing to them but for the media value they provide. It strikes terror again into the hearts of good men.

I am sorry Joe, but your assertion is something I find wholly ridiculous and not given to much thought. I am sorry innocent blood was spilled. I grieve for them all but I also know where the real blame lies and we are finally doing right. We have become the lion on the hunt rather than being the sheep led to slaughter only waiting for the next blade to fall.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ogrecat Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136610 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/16/2006 10:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Are these 'innocents' dead. Of course they are. Yet who put them in harm's way? Who chose to have clandestine meetings in populated apartment buildings? Who made sure their military assets were surrounded by 'innocents'?

Suppose they had been pre-born.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136611 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/16/2006 11:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
Very nice post. I don't think many who oppose the war will understand what you said but it is a very nice post.

Cheers,

Vile


Thanks for the kind words.

I wonder if it's my inability to describe or that some who are biased against the war refuse to admit their bias is being plucked like a banjo string that impedes understanding.

Whatever, al-Qaeda is winning the propaganda war. If you talk to armed forces members, I have, the stories they tell have little resemblance to what is actually happening in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Schools are being built, the level of health for both adults and particularly children is bettering, areas once considered dangerous are not now and so it goes. Yet the reporting and commentary paints a picture where desperation is only a footfall away and this would be solved if we weren't there. We're the problem not those who blow up marketplaces and tourist venues; we are the cause, not the solution.

It began for me at 9/11 listening to some pundits saying the attack was the fault of the US. The US brought it upon itself for being, well, the US. I have seen that thread repeat itself again and again in all its variants. I see it continued with the belief the west cares nothing about collateral casualties.

Agreed it is regrettable that innocents died at the same time did five al-Qaeda top officers. However, it was engineered that should these men be attacked there would be civilian casualties – that's why the meeting was in a place where non-combatants lived. Does anyone remember there were five al-Qaeda lieutenants killed in the raid?

If al-Qaeda is winning the propaganda war how are they doing it? By giving information to those who oppose the war in as graphic a manner possible. Show the beheadings, show the women and children killed, and, all the time, promote the view that backing off will solve it all. It is the belief of al-Qaeda there's a limit to which the west will reach and that limit is hastened by horrification and evoking sympathy for those that al-Qaeda puts in harm's way.

Does al-Qaeda grieve? No. Their wish is that it would be more so the sensibilities of the west are triggered further. Yet, even with the present numbers its working. The west's resolve is weakening.

What I find personally reprehensible is that there are some who, in a means to discredit the President for political gain, fall holus bolus into al-Qaeda's plan to further weaken that resolve. There is no discourse but condemnation purely for political points and, by that, fit into bin Laden's essential belief: the US and the coalition will run when there's sufficient blood shed. And it doesn't matter who's blood and includes those killed by being placed by al-Qaeda's hands as shields.

Not to put too fine a point on it but the American public (and those in other countries) is being conned. Al-Qaeda is manipulating response by centering on 'death of innocents' never admitting they placed these people in a position so they would be killed.

MichaelR




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136613 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 1:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
MichaelRead wrote:

It's a guarantee there will be deaths of civilians not because the American and coalition forces seek out civilians (yet that's part of the lie of 'collateral damage) but that these people are part of a defense strategy and, if killed, part of a disinformation strategy designed to show the 'brutality' of those who attack.

For those who think this is an apology for collateral deaths thing again. That women and children are killed is abominable – yet upon whom in the abomination but those who deliberately use women and children as shields?


You are 100% correct in your assessment. Mark Bowden writes about this in his book Black Hawk Down, about what our troops faced in Somalia. They saw women pulling machine guns with one hand while holding babies in the other. They saw men firing machine guns with little children sitting as shields right in front of them so that the little children would be killed if the American soldier shot back.

This is not WWII. It's not even the Cold War. This is a different kind of war. A very different kind of war.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136617 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 2:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
JoeChristmas wrote:

In this particular case, I'm sure these women and children were not used intentionally as human shields.

Really? How do you know the answer to that question? I'd be really intrigued to know, because the only way you can possibly know the answer is to get inside the mind of the AQ members which, of course, you can't.

Because senior level al Qaeda members know very well we would bomb them anyway. We have already done it many, many times.

They also know that we operate by strict rules of warfare, whatever disregard for human life they may show.

Innocent bystanders did not stop us from bombing Saddam Hussein at the start of the war, for example.

To some extent, it did.

So top al Qaeda officials do not think sleeping in a house with children is a real deterrent.

I think they do, just as much as a machine gunner gets little children to sit on him in hopes that an American soldier won't shoot back. It's both a deterrent and, if the soldier actually makes the decision to shoot, it's a propaganda victory at the same time. "Look at all of these innocent women and children that the evil Americans killed." We're all horrible, evil people and this gets broadcast all over the nightly news, blogs and Fooldom where stupid people repeat it over and over so much that the truth is never really known.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136618 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 5:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
MichaelRead,
"Thanks for the kind words."

No problem. I always enjoy your posts. You write very well, you are consistent and you employ common sense. Most importantly for me, you make me think.

"I wonder if it's my inability to describe or that some who are biased against the war refuse to admit their bias is being plucked like a banjo string that impedes understanding."

You articulate your points well. I do not know what the problem is. Is your view so far away from theirs as to be completely misunderstood? I often find myself unable to see how the Left can come to such illogical conclusions. My own personal view is that Liberals are ruled by their hearts while conservatives are ruled by their minds. That is not to say the Left has no mind or the conservatives have no heart. I merely suggest one or the other is dominant depending on ones political persuasion and people are blinded on both sides to some things.

There are other explanations of course. Some people simply cannot stand to lose an argument and will never accept what you say publicly though they know deep down you are right. Others cannot fathom how you can be so analytically cold and not consider feelings as a viable dominant idea over cold hearted calculation. Still others are simply not able to process what you say or haven't read deeply enough to try and understand. Intellectual dishonesty plays a role as well. In each case it is different and both sides suffer in one way or another for their unwillingness or inability to see the point of view of the other.

"Whatever, al-Qaeda is winning the propaganda war. If you talk to armed forces members, I have, the stories they tell have little resemblance to what is actually happening in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Schools are being built, the level of health for both adults and particularly children is bettering, areas once considered dangerous are not now and so it goes. Yet the reporting and commentary paints a picture where desperation is only a footfall away and this would be solved if we weren't there. We're the problem not those who blow up marketplaces and tourist venues; we are the cause, not the solution."

This is the most troubling and frustrating for me. I too have heard too many stories of good things happening to think everything is dire as painted by the journalists and other hacks out there trying to spread a message of doom. Everything is not rosy but it is a far cry from imminent collapse the Left seems to want us to think.

My biggest fear has always been that America would lose the will to fight this war. I can't envision any easier way for us to lose. There have been dramatic changes in that country and I know we can win it if we just pay attention and not lose the stomach for it. Too much is at stake and we stand to win too much. However, we have too many people out there who want to see us lose, do not believe in America, have their own agenda to ply or are simply too lazy to really dig into the meat of a story and thereby printing complete fabrications of what really happened. Once that is done, there are never any meaningful retractions and the story has already sunk in.

"It began for me at 9/11 listening to some pundits saying the attack was the fault of the US. The US brought it upon itself for being, well, the US. I have seen that thread repeat itself again and again in all its variants. I see it continued with the belief the west cares nothing about collateral casualties."

Even though the US was the first and continues to be one of the few who takes great pains to avoid civilian casualties to the point where we allow the enemy to win.

"Agreed it is regrettable that innocents died at the same time did five al-Qaeda top officers. However, it was engineered that should these men be attacked there would be civilian casualties – that's why the meeting was in a place where non-combatants lived. Does anyone remember there were five al-Qaeda lieutenants killed in the raid?"

You know, I have not ever heard it reported we actually got 5 of them in that raid. This post and what you typed is the very first place I have seen that reported. Why am I not surprised?

"If al-Qaeda is winning the propaganda war how are they doing it? By giving information to those who oppose the war in as graphic a manner possible. Show the beheadings, show the women and children killed, and, all the time, promote the view that backing off will solve it all. It is the belief of al-Qaeda there's a limit to which the west will reach and that limit is hastened by horrification and evoking sympathy for those that al-Qaeda puts in harm's way."

This is the key. It is what Iraq is all about. The insurgents, terrorists, or whatever you want to call them know they cannot win in a toe to toe fight with us. They know we can defeat them in any number of ways. However, they believe they can win by relentlessly killing us and manipulating the media so that the American people lose the will to fight. This is the only way they can win and they know it. Unfortunately, it appears to be finally working despite the great progress we have made because too many people are willing to help them battle us. The media is actually on their side, intentionally or not and this concept is just too heinous for some people to admit.

"What I find personally reprehensible is that there are some who, in a means to discredit the President for political gain, fall holus bolus into al-Qaeda's plan to further weaken that resolve. There is no discourse but condemnation purely for political points and, by that, fit into bin Laden's essential belief: the US and the coalition will run when there's sufficient blood shed. And it doesn't matter who's blood and includes those killed by being placed by al-Qaeda's hands as shields.

Not to put too fine a point on it but the American public (and those in other countries) is being conned. Al-Qaeda is manipulating response by centering on 'death of innocents' never admitting they placed these people in a position so they would be killed."


It bore repeating. You nailed it.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136621 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 6:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
As I said, some posters here buy into the belief the black hats are right and that innocents are targeted.

No they don't, unless I've missed something. Please point it out if I have.

What some people think is that long distance attacks using attenuated intelligence have questionable expected returns. Both in diminshed likelihood of success and increased likelihood of unwanted deaths. For instance, this very event.

Once again, show me an "innocents are targeted" post. Not "innocents are killed", but "innocents are targeted". There's a huge difference.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136625 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 8:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 88
some posters here buy into the belief the black hats are right and that innocents are targeted.

I don't think anybody thinks "innocents are targeted." That's just another cheap lie from the partisan right, attempting to deflect attention away from the issue.

What do you think would be the reaction in this country if Pakistan decided to "take out" a high priority target in, say Texas, and instead killed 20 Americans?

Did you not see the wave of nationalism and revulsion when America was attacked? How can you not understand why the people in Pakistan have the same reaction when their country is attacked?

Or are they supposed to intellectualize "Oh, that doesn't matter. The Americans are the good guys, and if they kill our villagers, well, that doesn't matter, because they say there might have been some bad guys there."

The depths to which you will stoop to rationalize our mistake are astounding.
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136630 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 9:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
Hey Goofy,
Out of order:
The depths to which you will stoop to rationalize our mistake are astounding.

Which mistake are you refering to?

What do you think would be the reaction in this country if Pakistan decided to "take out" a high priority target in, say Texas, and instead killed 20 Americans?

When was the last time a nation attacked us? I know the answer is obvious but the point is that AQ and their ilk are not Pakistan, or some other well identified org but are spread throughout humanity, thus the necessity of targeting in high density urban areas. More importantly, the little countries like Pakistan, if they thought they could handle it, would ask us to leave. There are a great number of countries that has known AG operations and associated orgs present which we are not actively engaged against. Ask yourself why. I'm sure you can rationalize on a case by case basis, but the big answer is, because those are different situations where the parent nation has said, "we got it, just let us borrow a helicopter or two" or something like that.

I must agree that I haven't seen anyone here suggest that the US is targeting innocents, but I have seen some "the US doesn't care about innocent deaths" type posts. I must stronly disagree with that position for two reasons. 1. I've run CD calculations and know how much ### pain it can be. But we do it because it's worth it and we do it everytime and air dropped munition is used. 2. The "bad guys" hang out in urban areas intentionally. It is a generally understood concept dating back to well before GWOT/GSAVE so why is this concept seem so new here? Think about it like this: you, being in opposition to some government, know that the opposing gov has a significant portion of it's military in country, know that they will attempt to kill or capture you given the chance, and know that they more than likely will be trying to use a 500 lb bomb to do the capturing. Do you: A. Go home to be with your family, putting them in obvious danger, B. say screw it and go shoot some pool, putting those at the pool hall in obvious danger, C. leave your family, and all those you love, for their sake to protect them from the great evil that is hunting you and seek to either fight face to face or hide from the enemy?

Well, what's your answer?

This was what the Kosovar Albanians were doing till the Serbs came in a started burning all of their towns to the ground.

I think you confuse the operations of war with the side effects of war. I can see that you oppose the war and all that comes with it, but CD is a sub-issue and not to be confused with the larger. Hate the war, that's fine, just understand that CD is a regretable consequence which the US expends GREAT amounts of time and money to eliminate or at best mitigate. It's largley pointless, IMHO, to rail on CD when your real target should be Bush and the war at large.

-spookysquid

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136636 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 10:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2


What do you think would be the reaction in this country if Pakistan decided to "take out" a high priority target in, say Texas, and instead killed 20 Americans?

Shouldn't the Pakistanis ask the US for cooperation in apprehending the suspect, even liquidating him/her?

Pakistan was unwilling/unable to help the US with Al-Qaeda as the region is literally the wild west of Pakistan where tribal laws are the norm and government is not recognized. Do we have such regions in the US where Pakistan will feel compelled to act alone?

Mark


Print the post Back To Top
Author: kenm47 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136637 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 10:17 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Do we have such regions in the US where Pakistan will feel compelled to act alone?"

Camden, New Jersey

<settle down, settle down; it's just a joke>

Ken

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MrCheeryO Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136639 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 10:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
..Really? How do you know the answer to that question? I'd be really intrigued to know, because the only way you can possibly know the answer is to get inside the mind of the AQ members which, of course, you can't....

Not definitive, but if you wanted to use women and children as human shields, wouldn't you be in fairly close proximity to them? My understanding is that no bad guys were killed, although I assume someone told the CIA bad guys were there or would be there. Where's Curveball these days?

Kind of like Waco.

All those American kiddies being used as human shields didn't stop the US government agencies bulling in with heavy weapons, when the evidence seemed to be they could have previously picked off that particular religious nut outside the compound, if they had used their brains the intelligent designer gave them.

In the case of that multiple murder the Democans came together as one. All the Bad Guy's fault, fer sure. Why would fereners be worthy of greater respect or better treatment?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ahote Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136642 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 11:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If you look at almost all results of attacks on terrorists you will find there is inevitable death of 'innocents'. .....Yet who put them in harm's way? Who chose to have clandestine meetings in populated apartment buildings? Who made sure their military assets were surrounded by 'innocents'?

The ignorance of people posting this sort of garbage is stunning.

If this had been an attack by say hamas on an Israeli General you would have condemned it.

The CIA has acted like a terrorist organisation. That's the bottom line. The US has sunk to the level of a rogue State.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136644 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 11:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Mitamuna wrote:

Do we have such regions in the US where Pakistan will feel compelled to act alone?

Coming soon to a terrorist organization near you...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1594030561/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-9186146-7447960#reader-link

Although I think regions in Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba are more likely to offer attractions to terrorists, if not outright support.

CCSand



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136646 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 11:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3

If this had been an attack by say hamas on an Israeli General you would have condemned it.

Since when do they attack Israeli Generals, or do you refer to General Population in this respect? They have an appetite for soft targets like pregnant mothers and children.

If you recall, when they successfully attacked soldiers in Gaza & the west bank ambush, no one ever condemned it as an act of terror ( other than some morons on the Israeli government, i think).


The CIA has acted like a terrorist organization. That's the bottom line. The US has sunk to the level of a rogue State.


Really? the village & Pakistani intelligence now claim the house belonged to Al-Qaeda's #2 in-laws and he was supposed to be there at dinner but he "missed" the missile as he sent his aides instead. There's a saying, "if you sleep with dogs, you're going to get flees".

In addition, 5 lieutenants were killed. But what's you fail to understand is intent.

You really need to brush up on your definition of terrorism.

Mark



Print the post Back To Top
Author: IronicFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136649 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 11:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I must agree that I haven't seen anyone here suggest that the US is targeting innocents, but I have seen some "the US doesn't care about innocent deaths" type posts.

I've read lots of posts in which people give the impression they don't particularly care about the deaths of innocent civilians in U.S. attacks.

The "bad guys" hang out in urban areas intentionally.

In many cases the "'bad guys' hang out" in cities because, well... it's where they happen to live.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136657 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 11:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Yes, and if you had any idea that you would be targeted by the largetst military in the land, whether right or wrong, would you sleep in the same house as your kids? I'd be gone in a second. I love my family too much for that.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ggiovanni Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136676 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You really need to brush up on your definition of terrorism.

Mark


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. By your very own standards (I am assuming), George Washington was a terrorist as he disobeyed his very own government in England and led killings of the English troops. By your own standards, he committed terrorist acts.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136681 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 2:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
No, by attacking other troops, Washington would have been acting in accordance with the Laws of War. Soldiers are lawful targets, non-com's are not. While some may die from CD, they cannot be the original target and the actual target must serve some military purpose. Nice try, bringing US history as justification for 911. But no, I think it's reasonable safe to say that President Washington was NOT a terrorist.

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rigoletto39 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136687 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
A rec is too small a thing to mark that post.

It is only dreadful when innocents are killed by our side - innocents killed by their side don't count, don't matter.

One of the differences between our side and theirs is this: they deliberately target innocents. We take extreme measures to keep from killing innocents.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rigoletto39 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136688 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 3:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"FAISALABAD, Jan 14: A husband shot dead his wife on Friday night after her ultrasound report revealed that she was going to give birth to their fourth daughter at Chak 64-GB of Jaranwala town. Reports said Muhammad Sadique had three daughters from one Kishar Bibi during their five years of marriage. When his wife got pregnant for the fourth time, Sadique took her to a private hospital and got conducted her ultrasound. As the report revealed that the woman was going to deliver another girl, the husband became infuriated and opened fire on her. She died on the spot. The husband managed to escape."

Evidently abortion is against Muslim law.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rigoletto39 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136690 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 3:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
>>Innocent bystanders did not stop us from bombing Saddam Hussein at the start of the war, for example.

To some extent, it did.


Interesting exchange. I missed the original post.

I saw the satellite photos of Baghdad right after the initial bombing. (They're probably still online.)

Unlike what some would have us believe, we did not "carpet bomb" Baghdad. We used precision, guided, bombs that hit specific targets with extreme (and deadly) accuracy.

The photos show cars on the roads right after the bombing. For one thing, we didn't hit the roads.

I think they do, just as much as a machine gunner gets little children to sit on him in hopes that an American soldier won't shoot back.

It's a code our troops live under. We learned a painful lesson from My Lai. We know that if we shoot the wrong person, we'll end up in court martial. We've court-martialed an officer for merely firing his pistol into the ground while questioning a suspect.

That's another one of the differences between Us and Them. We have a code of honor (and we enforce it). They do not.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rigoletto39 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136693 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 3:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Coming soon to a terrorist organization near you...

Also known as Aztlan:

http://www.aztlan.net/

http://www.americanpatrol.com/MECHA/AZTLAN.html

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136703 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 4:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I don't think anybody thinks "innocents are targeted." That's just another cheap lie from the partisan right, attempting to deflect attention away from the issue.

... and in this case parroted by the oh-so-reasonably-toned MichaelRead, with all the leather-elbow-patched didacticism he can muster. But those with the ability to discern content from form will realise how blood-boilingly convenient his apologia is, even though he has the temerity to suggest that it isn't one. What crap!

I'd issue him the same challenge as I issued someone else; if MichaelRead's family is wiped from the face of the earth in a highly risky attack in furtherance of killing a terrorist and his reaction is "c'est la vie, don't be angry good citizens", then I'll believe his sincerity.

Until then, his perspective is garbage and reactionary propaganda.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136704 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 4:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. By your very own standards (I am assuming), George Washington was a terrorist as he disobeyed his very own government in England and led killings of the English troops. By your own standards, he committed terrorist acts.

Huh?
My definition of the word does not apply here whatsoever.

Here's what I believe: terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims

Here's a web site I pulled it out of
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/define.htm#proposal

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136710 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 4:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
some posters here buy into the belief the black hats are right and that innocents are targeted.

I don't think anybody thinks "innocents are targeted." That's just another cheap lie from the partisan right, attempting to deflect attention away from the issue.

Goofyhoofy


Yet that's how it's promoted by al-Qaeda: innocents die at the hands of the occupying forces. That innocents are part and parcel of the carnage inflicted by a force that doesn't care if women and children die. The issue, my mind, is why would al-Qaeda put women and children in places where they will be harmed. I am not drying to deflect away from the issue of innocents being harmed but pointing to the issue they are placed in harm's way for political reason.

What do you think would be the reaction in this country if Pakistan decided to "take out" a high priority target in, say Texas, and instead killed 20 Americans?

Did you not see the wave of nationalism and revulsion when America was attacked? How can you not understand why the people in Pakistan have the same reaction when their country is attacked?

Or are they supposed to intellectualize "Oh, that doesn't matter. The Americans are the good guys, and if they kill our villagers, well, that doesn't matter, because they say there might have been some bad guys there."


You argument centers on sovereignty yet I would counter by saying those who use sovereignty as an escape route must learn this is not acceptable. A murderer from the US cannot escape justice by fleeing to Canada and visa versa. And, yes, if that murderer shoots at an RCMP officer that murderer will be shot. In Canada by Canadians.

In the porous border between the two countries, al-Qaeda uses Pakistan as a refuge from which they can plan and mount attacks. Pakistan is an ally against al-Qaeda and partners with coalition forces ridding the country of them and would have taken out those al-Qaeda lieutenants with their forces. How can you say that Pakistan's sovereignty prevents hunting down terrorists when both Pakistan and Allied Forces are hunting them down?

The depths to which you will stoop to rationalize our mistake are astounding.

How is the tracking down and killing al-Qaeda operatives a mistake but that you deem it a mistake because it was set up that should they be attacked there would be 'collateral damage'. I guarantee you there will be 'innocents' killed whenever an al-Qaeda person is killed. I can equally guarantee that these innocents will get the headlines and not the al-Qaeda person.

I am not rationalizing a mistake yet pointing out an al-Qaeda (and other terrorists) strategy in winning a war of minds. This is orchestrated killing by an enemy that knows we care and plays that card continually.

MichaelR




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136715 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 4:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
The "bad guys" hang out in urban areas intentionally.

In many cases the "'bad guys' hang out" in cities because, well... it's where they happen to live.

IF


And, since they have to go to mosque occasionally what a perfect place to keep arms, ammo and explosives – after all, why lug all that stuff around all day?

MichaelR




Print the post Back To Top
Author: fcarlson Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136725 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 5:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I don't think anybody thinks "innocents are targeted." That's just another cheap lie from the partisan right, attempting to deflect attention away from the issue.

I think "innocents are targeted" but not by the people you usually are critical of:

See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060117/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_american_reporter_7;_ylt=Au3qP7jDsXfBCeS4VLYAbntX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

or this:

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

or this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3756552.stm

how about this:

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

In short, the depths to which you will rationalize (by omission) what we are fighting against is also astounding.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: maracle Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136732 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 6:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
MichaelR, the difference between you and most Americans, is that we are not interested in behaving like terrorists.

I know you favor the "whatever you do, we'll do worse" method of war, but that just isn't acceptable.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fcarlson Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136744 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 8:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I'd issue him the same challenge as I issued someone else; if MichaelRead's family is wiped from the face of the earth in a highly risky attack in furtherance of killing a terrorist and his reaction is "c'est la vie, don't be angry good citizens", then I'll believe his sincerity.


Thats sophistry, and poor sophistry at that.

The question that you should ask yourself is if the people who did Bali, the WTC, Madrid, London, scores of murders of civilians and several snuff films want to kill your family.

If the answer is no, then your question to MichaelRead is an intellectually honest path.

If the answer is yes, then your next question is "how bad can they hurt me, my neighbors and my way of life".

If the answer is "not much", then your question to MichaelRead is an intellectually honest one.

Until you frame your questions with those prerequisites, one way or the other, your challenge is worthless because it lacks the context to elicit an meaningful answer. Without context, the challenge is little more than a propaganda prop that drives the result, which may work with the stupid or weak, but will probably not pass muster with anyone who knows the technique of the loaded question.

The answer is that no one wants their family to be killed, the citizens of Dresden didn't want it, nor did the citizens in the World Trade Center, nor anyone else.

But without any context, what you have set up is a moral trap between the collective good and the personal good and it's a totally discreditable question.

But you already knew that...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136745 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 9:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
JDCRex wrote:

I'd issue him the same challenge as I issued someone else; if MichaelRead's family is wiped from the face of the earth in a highly risky attack in furtherance of killing a terrorist and his reaction is "c'est la vie, don't be angry good citizens", then I'll believe his sincerity.

You should take the same challenge yourself. What happens if your family is wiped out because some piece of communications or more than one piece of communications was missed, thereby giving terrorists the opportunity to detonate a nuclear device in this country? Frankly, I wouldn't believe you if you did say "C'est la vie."

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136747 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 9:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
But without any context

Of course there's a context!

What the hell do you think we are discussing? It revolves around a particular event. The one in Pakistan.

Read is waxing in stentorian tones about how the fault lies with terrorists and that they are craven killers. Well, duh! It's axiomatic. These people are psycopathic scum. But they are not necessarily stupid. They are hardly going to hold their meetings in the middle of nowhere with a "come and get us" sign flying above their hovel, are they?

In light of that context, what some of us are saying is that lobbing missiles into the middle of residential areas with intelligence that will obviously be pretty imperfect is highly problematic. Now, your comeback might be that doing nothing is as well, and that's perfectly valid. What isn't valid, however, is Read's overbaked rationale and operatics that pretty much excuse any attack if a terrorist might be hit in the process.

And it's a case of doing something UTTERLY RADICAL, like putting yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment. With their frame of reference, their understanding of the situation and their having to deal with identifying the bodies of family and friends from bits and pieces, do you think they're going to take crap like Read's apologia into account when and Islamist comes knocking to tell them about the evils of the infidel and try to recruit them?

Also, since you seem to have picked up the baton, and because Read has me on ignore or isn't otherwise willing to engage, where exactly are people here saying "innocents are targetted?"

Can you point that out? Anywhere?

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: fcarlson Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136748 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/17/2006 10:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Also, since you seem to have picked up the baton, and because Read has me on ignore or isn't otherwise willing to engage, where exactly are people here saying "innocents are targetted?"

They are claiming the reverse, that no one is claiming that innocents are targeted and that it is a cheap shot from the "partisan right".

I don't think anybody thinks "innocents are targeted." That's just another cheap lie from the partisan right, attempting to deflect attention away from the issue.


I am claiming that "innocents are targeted" but by the people beheading journalists and such.

I agree that only the most insane think that we targeted innocent civilians.

In light of that context, what some of us are saying is that lobbing missiles into the middle of residential areas with intelligence that will obviously be pretty imperfect is highly problematic. Now, your comeback might be that doing nothing is as well, and that's perfectly valid. What isn't valid, however, is Read's overbaked rationale and operatics that pretty much excuse any attack if a terrorist might be hit in the process.

Well, duh, war is highly problematic. Innocent people die and may have died in this case. Innocent people have died because of the horror of war ever sense man was stupid enough to wage war.

This is a different question than the one you asked, which was to weigh personal vs. collective effects of the death of innocent people in war, the question you asked is NOT tied to a particular event, just the reverse, it is hypothetical and it is without context.

And it's a case of doing something UTTERLY RADICAL, like putting yourself in someone else's shoes for a moment. With their frame of reference, their understanding of the situation and their having to deal with identifying the bodies of family and friends from bits and pieces, do you think they're going to take crap like Read's apologia into account when and Islamist comes knocking to tell them about the evils of the infidel and try to recruit them?


As far as this goes, it would be nice if we knew if these people were terrorists or innocents or both and the proportions of each. This will undoubtedly be flushed out in the days to come with an investigation. This also requires utterly radical thinking by some, which is to know the facts of the situation before conclusions are drawn and statements uttered.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tomcat777 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136754 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/18/2006 12:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
We still owe those bastards a payback for 9/11 when they killed 3000 innocents. The ratio should be 1000 or 100,000 to one just to get even. No tears no sympathy for those that still harbor terrorist murderers. Evey last person within 20 miles of a terrorist cell that has knowledge of its existance and does nothing to expose it is guilty not innocent.

Our pussy-foot approach to the insurgents in Iraq is killing our kids. If there are insurgents in a town we should level the whole town. Thwere were no non-combatants. Let DRESDEN be our model.

Those bastards caught a female reporter and will kill her if we don't release all female Islamic prisoners. We should respond that if they kill her we kill all of the female islamic prisoners. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

They blow up a Hummer we level a Mosque. Make them feel enough pain to see that the resistance brings their destruction.To heck with foot patrols B-52's at 50000 feet are close enough.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: waterfell Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136756 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/18/2006 2:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Also, since you seem to have picked up the baton, and because Read has me on ignore or isn't otherwise willing to engage, where exactly are people here saying "innocents are targetted?"

Can you point that out? Anywhere?

==========================================================================

Well, there's John Kerry who recently said on Face the Nation that American forces are terrorizing the people of Iraq. That's not exactly the same as saying innocents are being targetted, but it isn't very helpful either. Kerry and other leading Democrats are saying exactly what the Al Qaeda leaders would, if they had the chance to directly address the American public.

-waterfell

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoeChristmas Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136757 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/18/2006 3:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Vile: I am sorry Joe, but your assertion is something I find wholly ridiculous and not given to much thought. I am sorry innocent blood was spilled. I grieve for them all but I also know where the real blame lies and we are finally doing right.

It's just a way for you to avoid moral responsibility for the actions of your government.

You think we are angels, white as snow. Our thoughts are pure so we must always be in the right. But terrorists are "evil doers" who deserve what happens to them, and innocents caught up in your war are, sadly, going to have to die.

Here is something you will never understand in your white hat world:

"If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously
committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate
them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line
dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human
being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"

--Alexander Solzhenitsyn

--JC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JoeChristmas Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136758 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/18/2006 3:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Not to put too fine a point on it but the American public (and those in other countries) is being conned. Al-Qaeda is manipulating response by centering on 'death of innocents' never admitting they placed these people in a position so they would be killed.

You are conning yourself if you refuse to take moral responsibility for your actions, or the actions of your government. To claim all innocent people killed in war are the responbility of the terrorists is wrong. There are always grey areas. If you agree with this, then we must examine each attack individually. Bombing an entire village to kill one man is wrong. Bombing a street? A house with women and kids, when we knew of their presence beforehand?

You just want to wash your hands with the awful mess and blame it on al Qaeda.

--JC

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136759 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/18/2006 3:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
You are conning yourself if you refuse to take moral responsibility for your actions, or the actions of your government. To claim all innocent people killed in war are the responsibility of the terrorists is wrong. There are always grey areas. If you agree with this, then we must examine each attack individually. Bombing an entire village to kill one man is wrong. Bombing a street? A house with women and kids, when we knew of their presence beforehand?

You just want to wash your hands with the awful mess and blame it on al Qaeda.

--JC


No, that's not what I mean: what I state is that those who place innocents in harm's way as cover are reprehensible. That this is used as a means of shifting responsibility to attackers is deeply wrong. I do not agree there are grey areas when al-Qaeda sets it up so there are civilian casualties.

Point is that you don't seem to understand is that al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups depend on reaction to civilian casualties and ensure they happen. If this then upon whom is the moral responsibility?

You are falling into the trap al-Qaeda has set. You say we know there will be civilian casualties yet we go ahead. What is the alternative when holding back from any casualties allows the protection of thugs?

The loss of life is deeply regrettable yet who placed these people so they do become killed? Why do they surround themselves with innocents who may be killed and then use their deaths as a condemnation of the attacker?

Your words: 'Moral responsibility'. On whom?

MichaelR




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Vile Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136761 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/18/2006 5:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
JoeChristmas,
Happy Anniversary.

"It's just a way for you to avoid moral responsibility for the actions of your government."

No it isn't. I have no moral dilemmas when it comes to what we have done. MichaelRead said we got 5 terrorists in the raid. That's good enough for me when you consider they actually target innocents while we go out of our way to avoid them. In war, innocent people often die. It is a sad reality that we have worked very hard to change. In the end, I think of all the countless innocent lives that remain because we did something to stop needless death.

"You think we are angels, white as snow. Our thoughts are pure so we must always be in the right. But terrorists are "evil doers" who deserve what happens to them, and innocents caught up in your war are, sadly, going to have to die."

More or less. I don't think we are angels but I think we are right. If I did not, I would be against it. Terrorists are evil doers. How can you rationalize otherwise? Someone who is willing to put together a bomb filled with nails that will pierce the flesh of an infant for no other reason than to sow terror is inherently evil in my world. What do you call it in your world?

"Here is something you will never understand in your white hat world:

"If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously
committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate
them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line
dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human
being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
--Alexander Solzhenitsyn"


I understand completely. I also understand that death must be dealt in order to save lives upon occassion. I will not denigrate you as you did me by saying this is not something you understand. War sucks! Always has, always will! It takes a little piece of each of us with it. It takes something pure and makes it ugly and hated. Given the choice of taking out 5 terrorists and an innocent family or letting them go to perhaps kill thousands, I'm going to pick take out the terrorists every time. It is a crappy decision to have to make. I also believe it is the right one. We can agree to disagree or you can keep denigrating me. Its up to you hoss.

Cheers,

Vile
NEVER SAY DIE!!!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: IronicFelix Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136791 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/18/2006 2:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Point is that you don't seem to understand is that al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups depend on reaction to civilian casualties and ensure they happen.

Ah, finally someone who gets it. I've been saying this for some time and even coined a phrase to describe it -- "neo-terrorism" -- in order to differentiate it from regular or classical terrorism. We've all come to understand "terrorism" as the use or threat of violence against innocent civilians to achieve a political end. For neo-terrorists, killing enemy civilians isn't an end in itself, nor is the means to achieve a political end. Instead, it is a way to provoke the enemy into taking violent action against their own civilians in order to alienate from the enemy, in al-Qaeda's case, the West or pro-Western regimes.

An example: Hamas terrorists surely know that suicide bomb attacks will not soften Israel's resolve and result in an Israeli retreat. The surely know that precicely the opposite will happen, that Israel will retaliate and crack down on Palestinians in general. Hamas counts on it. This increases Palestinian antipathy towards Israel, makes Palestinians less likely to desire peace or compromise and more likely to desire revenge. It increases support for anti-Israeli militants, like Hamas, and reduces support for accomodationists, like the Palestinian Authority.

Devilishly clever, no?

Neo-terrorists put us in a conundrum. If we retaliate, we're doing exactly what they want us to do. If we don't retaliate, they attack again until we do. Win-win for them.

What is required is very precisely calibrated retaliation, something that is very difficult to do.





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136795 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/18/2006 2:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
8 Year anniversary? Man, you really need to move on:)

Mark


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JDCRex Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136817 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/18/2006 3:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What is required is very precisely calibrated retaliation

Exactly.

But what we get is clash-of-civilisations, balls-out madness that merely plays into the hands of the lunatics on the other side. A state of perpetual overshoot that guarantees more of the same.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tomcat777 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136865 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/19/2006 1:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Their are no innocent Islamics that believe in Jihad. They are worshiping murder of those that don't believe like they do. They are all part of a global conspiracy TO KILL ALL NON-BELIEVERS- THEY ARE GUILTY OF MURDER or CONSPIRACY to MURDER. Let's make it clear that every last Islamic that cheered when the Twin Towers fell deserves to die violently as part of getting even. Every last SOB Islamic leader that spouts crap about Jihad deserves a FATWAW to blow him away. These are a bunch of MURDERERS that deserve nothing less then death on sight.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: trismus Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136974 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/19/2006 8:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Came here for respite from a mountain of drudge.
I picked a good thread.

Michael and CCS are absolutely right in what they say, they make a very good case that the strategy of bombing most of these targets is counter productive.
It gives Al-Qaeda the upper hand in the propaganda war while at the same time ensuring that the ranks of the insurgents doesn't diminish.
We are going to go further along that path, as troops are withdrawn the strategy is to increase the bombing runs which in turn will lead to more of the 'innocent' being killed and the swelling of the insurgents ranks.
The head of Iraqi intelligence recently declared that there were approximately 200,000 insurgents in Iraq. They have more manpower than we have and at the same time their strategy is more effective than ours.
We have safe zones where only the paid soldiers, foolish and brave civilians venture from. The insurgents, they have the run of the country.

A lot of Sunni insurgents have had a falling out with the foreign elements in Iraq because the foreigners are getting more publicity than the Sunni's which the Sunni's think is not a reflection of what is happening on the ground.
That falling out doesn't alter the fact that they are both continuing in their aim of removing the coalition from Iraq.

It's one hell of a mess we've got into and the only way out in the foreseeable future is with our tail between our legs claiming some obscure type of victory.

Nobody can possibly object to the operation carried out in Pakistan, after all our purpose in going there in the first place was to get Al-Qaeda.
Having said that, many posters here have belittled Clintons effort to bomb the Al-Qaeda hierarchy when the opportunity arose.

Regards

Tony

PS.
I think Clintons cracking up, he recently declared the barmy one would make a good leader of the UN.

PPS.

CC. How is the hair coming along?




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MichaelRead Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136984 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/19/2006 10:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Michael and CCS are absolutely right in what they say, they make a very good case that the strategy of bombing most of these targets is counter productive.

It gives Al-Qaeda the upper hand in the propaganda war while at the same time ensuring that the ranks of the insurgents doesn't diminish.

We are going to go further along that path, as troops are withdrawn the strategy is to increase the bombing runs which in turn will lead to more of the 'innocent' being killed and the swelling of the insurgent's ranks.

Trismus


Just to set a point straight, Tony, it isn't that I see bombing of these targets as counter-productive. What I wrote about was the cynical manner in which these non-combatants are deliberately placed in harm's way by the terrorists and then these death promoted by these self-same terrorists as a sign of the attacker's brutality.

Concurrent with this is the way in which certain opponents to the war use this as a charge against the war and, by doing so, are falling straight into the terrorist's propaganda trap.

The terrorists hide guns, ammunition and explosives in mosques and, when these armaments are captured, cry their places of worship are being fouled. The terrorists' playbook includes that, should one be captured, claim torture and lack of respect (as in pissing on the Koran). They place innocents in places they will be harmed fully knowing the west will decry these deaths – and the terrorists' media/propaganda arm plays this to the hilt. This is a massive media con job and many buy into it.

We, the white hats, are made into brutalizers of those we wish to stop blowing up schools and buses.

What the west finds hard to fathom is that an enemy would place its own people in danger and what we have to wake up to is they do so for good reason: it saps resolve.

I would rename 'collateral damage' to 'insurgent propaganda deaths' whenever a terrorist is taken out and there are deaths of innocents. Not to absolve of the deaths – which in itself is terrible – but that these deaths were engineered as propaganda fodder.

MichaelR




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: tomcat777 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 136988 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/19/2006 11:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Understand the killer bombers and the 9/11 attackers didn't follow Geneva Conventions - they infact are in a class called "Illegal combatants" they wear no national uniform represent no government nor bear a mark of rank. Such individuals can be executed without trial, tourtured, or deprived of necessities of life without recourse. They are a category of sub-human that MUST be exterminated for civilization to function.

There is no reason for us to trade shot for shot M-16 vs AK-47. We don't want a "Fair fight" we want an end to the killer murdering SOB's. We need to get tough and when one is caught get their children, grandmothers, teachers, clergy (the clergy in particular) and friends as well. How dare "Clergy" claim the right to issue FATWA's death sentences without trials.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: trismus Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 137149 of 176662
Subject: Re: Deaths of the Innocent Date: 1/21/2006 2:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Michal:
Just to set a point straight, Tony, it isn't that I see bombing of these targets as counter-productive. What I wrote about was the cynical manner in which these non-combatants are deliberately placed in harm's way by the terrorists and then these death promoted by these self-same terrorists as a sign of the attacker's brutality.

Concurrent with this is the way in which certain opponents to the war use this as a charge against the war and, by doing so, are falling straight into the terrorist's propaganda trap.


I don't think there is anything cynical about their strategy at all.
They are just as earnest in their endeavours as we are in ours if not more so, as a previous poster pointed out they would have to be pretty stupid (which they are not) to hold their meetings in an open field, the easiest way to get lost is in a crowd.

The choice of whether to bomb or not to bomb an all to often spurious target is ours, it is not a decision forced upon us by the insurgents.
When the decision to bomb is given we know there will be 'Deaths of the Innocent' we also know these deaths will be used against us in propaganda, we in fact arm the insurgents with the factual basis for their propaganda.

When I read your posts, all of what I agree with, it stood out like a sore thumb to me that you had, as I claimed, made the case that the bombing was a counter productive strategy. You inadvertently gave all the reasons for it being so.

From the HRW:

The aerial strikes on Iraqi leadership constituted one of the most disturbing aspects of the war in Iraq for several reasons. First, many of the civilian casualties from the air war occurred during U.S. attacks on senior Iraqi leadership officials. Second, the intelligence and targeting methodologies used to identify potential leadership targets were inherently flawed and led to preventable civilian deaths. Finally, every single attack on leadership failed. None of the targeted individuals was killed, and in the cases examined by Human Rights Watch, local Iraqis repeatedly stated that they believed the intended targets were not even present at the time of the strike.

---Conclusion and Recommendations
Under international humanitarian law, the targeting of military leadership is permissible, even if it results in civilian casualties, so long as the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage outweighs the civilian cost. Aerial strikes targeting the leadership of a party to the conflict (“decapitation strikes” in U.S. military parlance) are governed by the same rules of IHL that apply to other military actions: the individual attacked must be a military target92 and the attack must not be indiscriminate, i.e., it must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and it must not cause harm to the civilian population or civilian objects which could be “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” from the attack.93 Human Rights Watch did not assess the military advantage of eliminating specific Iraqi military leaders, but the United States is required to carry out this balancing act prior to launching decapitation strikes.

If they respect these criteria, attacks on enemy leaders who take a direct part in hostilities are not prohibited and are different from assassinations committed outside the context of an armed conflict, which are extrajudicial executions prohibited by international human rights law.94 Aerial strikes on leadership targets, however, still require a particularly high level of scrutiny.

The U.S. practice of decapitation strikes gives rise to a number of concerns. In some cases, the location of the intended target and the imprecision of the coordinates used to direct the attack may have resulted in indiscriminate attacks. More generally, the continued resort to decapitation strikes despite their complete lack of success and the significant civilian losses they caused can be seen as a failure to take “all feasible precautions” in choice of means and methods of warfare in order to minimize civilian losses as required by international humanitarian law.95


http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htm#_Toc57442237

The link isn't fresh but I believe the premise is still sound.

the individual attacked must be a military target92 and the attack must not be indiscriminate,

Catch 22. It is often claimed here that the insurgents/terrorists shouldn't have the rights of the Geneva Convention because they are not military.
If they are not military our bombing is illegal.
(removes tongue from cheek)

As I said, I'm not disagreeing with what you said, I'm merely pointing out that you inadvertently also made another case within your post.

I would rename 'collateral damage' to 'insurgent propaganda deaths' whenever a terrorist is taken out and there are deaths of innocents. Not to absolve of the deaths – which in itself is terrible – but that these deaths were engineered as propaganda fodder.

I think a far more truthful name would be the title you chose for this thread 'Deaths of the Innocent'.

Robbery with violence, rename it 'mugging', it doesn't sound as bad.

At the end of the day we are supposed to be the good guys, we are supposed to be freeing them ( I mustn't get cynical!) not killing them.
We chose to invade them, we weren't invited to do so, our argument wasn't with the Iraqi people but with the regime.
With both the good and bad guys blowing them up who'd want to be an Iraqi.

Regards

Tony

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (52) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement