Author Topic: The Terrorist U.S.A.  (Read 10177 times)

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #20 on: June 05, 2013, 12:10:04 am »
Even if that's the case, it's still 1 Iranian invasion to the USA's 48 or so.  You are a rogue country.

The US military has a killer drone program and so does the CIA and so does the Special Ops group.  You guys are completely out of control.  No trials, no due process, it's all blatant assassinations and fuck the so-called collateral damage.  If a a "kill list target" is in a building and there are 34 other people there, then 35 people get killed.  These are war crimes and it's absolutely disgusting that suppposedly intelligent people are defending these atrocities.

1. Iran is a tangent in this discussion. I still don't know what it is you were trying to say with regard to that graphic, and you posted it without any explanation. Depending on one's perspective, a viewer could easily come away with the message that Iran has been lucky that it has not needed to deploy bombings to defend itself against their enemies, while the US has had to deal with aggression from a wide variety of nations. Or that Iran has lost most (or all) of its armed conflicts, while the US has won most of theirs. Or that Iran's enemies were easily neutralized without bombing, while the enemies of the US required tougher military action. There are many ways to look at the graphic.  

2. Drones are a superior fighting technology. They enable the US to neutralize enemies without putting the fine men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. Drones are also great tools that we use for dangerous surveillance, and intelligence-gathering operations.

3. You have offered your own, personal, standard of what constitutes terrorism, and I have offered a rebuttal. Now you accuse the US of committing war crimes with the drones. There are standards for war crimes which are based on law. Can you map any specific drone strikes to breaches of those laws? Or is that just another one of your gut feelings, or opinions?
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #21 on: June 05, 2013, 12:19:53 am »
I'm mostly with you, Gil. Let's say the definition of terrorists is that they target random innocent people, whereas the United States targets people we consider to be guilty -- but then, oops, take down a bunch of unequivocally innocent people along with them. The supposed moral difference centers around who, specifically, is targeted. But to the loved ones of dead innocents, I'm not sure the distinction is all that comforting.

That is indeed the dilemma of collateral damage.

For that matter, I'm not comfortable with killing even the suspected guilty person without benefit of due process. I realize the rules for U.S. citizens are different than those applying to a suspect who is a non-citizen and a presumed enemy of the state. Yet the moral underpinnings still apply: Due process is designed to minimize the risk of mistakes and injustices.

I guess the question the becomes: how far does due process extend? Must we capture the soldiers of every enemy with whom we engage in combat, and then bring them to trial? We have captured many enemy combatants, but there are those that are beyond the range of capture. Can we let them go on operating until they are vulnerable enough for us to capture and prosecute?
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,098
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #22 on: June 05, 2013, 12:57:23 am »
That is indeed the dilemma of collateral damage.

A dilemma is whether to get a turkey sandwich or a ham sandwich for lunch. Here we're talking about ending the lives of men, women and children. If one side calls murdering innocent civilians "collateral damage," and the other side calls it "terrorism," I would have to say that while I wouldn't quite pick either term I'd consider the latter a lot closer to worthy of the action's gravity.

Quote
I guess the question the becomes: how far does due process extend? Must we capture the soldiers of every enemy with whom we engage in combat, and then bring them to trial? We have captured many enemy combatants, but there are those that are beyond the range of capture. Can we let them go on operating until they are vulnerable enough for us to capture and prosecute?

Seems like the distance between "letting them go on operating" and "capture and prosecute" can be measured in yards. If they're "beyond the range of capture," they're probably beyond the range of fire as well. If we're close enough to kill them, we're probably close enough to capture them and send them through the legal system.




Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #23 on: June 05, 2013, 08:14:56 am »
Here we're talking about ending the lives of men, women and children. If one side calls murdering innocent civilians "collateral damage," and the other side calls it "terrorism," I would have to say that while I wouldn't quite pick either term I'd consider the latter a lot closer to worthy of the action's gravity.

1. Murder has very specific legal parameters that I don't think are met in cases of drone attacks gone awry, or deaths resulting from bombing strategic targets.

2. I agree with you that the situations are grave, but that does not mean that they are any closer to terrorism than civilian deaths resulting from conventional/traditional forms of warfare.

Let's say you have a town in France in 194x. The Germans have occupied this town, and are heavily armed. The Americans march into the town and engage the Germans. Both sides are shooting, firing tanks, and lobbing mortar shells at each other. During the fray, stray bullets kill a few of the townspeople as they attempt to flee. A few more are killed when a mortar falls short of the American position and slams into an inn. Even more die when an American tank fires on a church where a German machine gunner is perched in the belfry, and some townspeople are hiding in the basement. 

How do we classify what happened to all the dead Frenchmen? I would classify it as collateral damage.

Seems like the distance between "letting them go on operating" and "capture and prosecute" can be measured in yards. If they're "beyond the range of capture," they're probably beyond the range of fire as well. If we're close enough to kill them, we're probably close enough to capture them and send them through the legal system.

The reality is that the distance is not measured in yards. It is measured in terms of how dangerous a capture operation will be. It is measured in the ability to successfully carry out a capture operation without being detected by the target ahead of time. One of the great things about drones is that it extends the range of fire significantly beyond the range of capture.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline oilgun

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,564
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #24 on: June 05, 2013, 08:00:17 pm »
That is indeed the dilemma of collateral damage.

I guess the question then becomes: how far does due process extend? Must we capture the soldiers of every enemy with whom we engage in combat, and then bring them to trial? We have captured many enemy combatants, but there are those that are beyond the range of capture. Can we let them go on operating until they are vulnerable enough for us to capture and prosecute?

Obviously due process has been completely abandoned so I don't understand your question of how far it should extend. Bin Laden (and I'm sure many other suspects assassinated by drones) could have easily been captured.  Bin Laden was basically unarmed and unprotected.  But, hey, I guess Obama prefers to kill them instead of torturing them.  Especially since most people that were taken hostage by the US have been cleared of any wrongdoing.

On a dark humour note, did you know that the military geeks who operate the drones from a computer somewhere in the US, actually wear flight suits while at their terminals?  It's surreal.

Offline oilgun

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,564
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #25 on: June 05, 2013, 08:09:48 pm »
1. Iran is a tangent in this discussion. I still don't know what it is you were trying to say with regard to that graphic, and you posted it without any explanation. Depending on one's perspective, a viewer could easily come away with the message that Iran has been lucky that it has not needed to deploy bombings to defend itself against their enemies, while the US has had to deal with aggression from a wide variety of nations. Or that Iran has lost most (or all) of its armed conflicts, while the US has won most of theirs. Or that Iran's enemies were easily neutralized without bombing, while the enemies of the US required tougher military action. There are many ways to look at the graphic.  

2. Drones are a superior fighting technology. They enable the US to neutralize enemies without putting the fine men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. Drones are also great tools that we use for dangerous surveillance, and intelligence-gathering operations.

3. You have offered your own, personal, standard of what constitutes terrorism, and I have offered a rebuttal. Now you accuse the US of committing war crimes with the drones. There are standards for war crimes which are based on law. Can you map any specific drone strikes to breaches of those laws? Or is that just another one of your gut feelings, or opinions?

I thought that grarphic spoke for itself.  Iran, which is being demonized, has no history of invading other states, while the USA, the self-appointed world police, has a history of illegally invading and attacking a slew of other countries. Yet somehow, Iran is the evil monster? 

Offline oilgun

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,564
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #26 on: June 05, 2013, 08:17:09 pm »
1. Iran is a tangent in this discussion. I still don't know what it is you were trying to say with regard to that graphic, and you posted it without any explanation. Depending on one's perspective, a viewer could easily come away with the message that Iran has been lucky that it has not needed to deploy bombings to defend itself against their enemies, while the US has had to deal with aggression from a wide variety of nations. Or that Iran has lost most (or all) of its armed conflicts, while the US has won most of theirs. Or that Iran's enemies were easily neutralized without bombing, while the enemies of the US required tougher military action. There are many ways to look at the graphic.  

2. Drones are a superior fighting technology. They enable the US to neutralize enemies without putting the fine men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. Drones are also great tools that we use for dangerous surveillance, and intelligence-gathering operations.

3. You have offered your own, personal, standard of what constitutes terrorism, and I have offered a rebuttal. Now you accuse the US of committing war crimes with the drones. There are standards for war crimes which are based on law. Can you map any specific drone strikes to breaches of those laws? Or is that just another one of your gut feelings, or opinions?

Drones are superior technology if the goal is to encourage more 9/11 type of attacks on the USA.  Drones are certainly doing a good job at endangering American lives everywhere.  Unfortunately you can probably look forward to more Boston style attacks thanks to your "superior technology".

Offline oilgun

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,564
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #27 on: June 05, 2013, 08:19:14 pm »
1. Iran is a tangent in this discussion. I still don't know what it is you were trying to say with regard to that graphic, and you posted it without any explanation. Depending on one's perspective, a viewer could easily come away with the message that Iran has been lucky that it has not needed to deploy bombings to defend itself against their enemies, while the US has had to deal with aggression from a wide variety of nations. Or that Iran has lost most (or all) of its armed conflicts, while the US has won most of theirs. Or that Iran's enemies were easily neutralized without bombing, while the enemies of the US required tougher military action. There are many ways to look at the graphic.  

2. Drones are a superior fighting technology. They enable the US to neutralize enemies without putting the fine men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. Drones are also great tools that we use for dangerous surveillance, and intelligence-gathering operations.

3. You have offered your own, personal, standard of what constitutes terrorism, and I have offered a rebuttal. Now you accuse the US of committing war crimes with the drones. There are standards for war crimes which are based on law. Can you map any specific drone strikes to breaches of those laws? Or is that just another one of your gut feelings, or opinions?

Isn't it illegal to bomb countries that you are not at war with, such as Yemmen and Pakistan and god knows where else? 

Offline oilgun

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,564
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #28 on: June 05, 2013, 09:54:01 pm »
1. Iran is a tangent in this discussion. I still don't know what it is you were trying to say with regard to that graphic, and you posted it without any explanation. Depending on one's perspective, a viewer could easily come away with the message that Iran has been lucky that it has not needed to deploy bombings to defend itself against their enemies, while the US has had to deal with aggression from a wide variety of nations. Or that Iran has lost most (or all) of its armed conflicts, while the US has won most of theirs. Or that Iran's enemies were easily neutralized without bombing, while the enemies of the US required tougher military action. There are many ways to look at the graphic.  

2. Drones are a superior fighting technology. They enable the US to neutralize enemies without putting the fine men and women of our armed forces in harm's way. Drones are also great tools that we use for dangerous surveillance, and intelligence-gathering operations.

3. You have offered your own, personal, standard of what constitutes terrorism, and I have offered a rebuttal. Now you accuse the US of committing war crimes with the drones. There are standards for war crimes which are based on law. Can you map any specific drone strikes to breaches of those laws? Or is that just another one of your gut feelings, or opinions?

Oh and btw, it's not my "own, personal, standard of what constitutes terrorism", I just agree with one of the definitions in the Encyclopedia Britannica. You make it sound like my view is on the fringe.  It may well be on the fringe in "America" but most of you are blinded by fear and paranoia.  People on the outside can clearly see the war-mongering country the US has become.  Your military-industrial complex is just itching for another war.  You invested so much in it that you have to keep them busy, that's why the "War on Terror" was designed to never end.  Don't get me wrong, I love Americans, even  (some of) the religious ones, and NYC is probably my favourite city in the world and I even love Buffalo,  I had a wonderful time there, its gay scene is probably the friendliest.  Anyway, it's your administration(s) I can't stand.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,098
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #29 on: June 05, 2013, 11:24:52 pm »
It may well be on the fringe in "America" but most of you are blinded by fear and paranoia. 

The "most of you" is based on your own personal assumptions, I take it?

Quote
People on the outside can clearly see the war-mongering country the US has become.  Your military-industrial complex is just itching for another war.  You invested so much in it that you have to keep them busy, that's why the "War on Terror" was designed to never end.  Don't get me wrong, I love Americans, even  (some of) the religious ones, and NYC is probably my favourite city in the world and I even love Buffalo,  I had a wonderful time there, its gay scene is probably the friendliest.  Anyway, it's your administration(s) I can't stand.

Nice to get the compliments, but they're at odds with your sweeping generalization above. My views are, admittedly, not exactly politically centrist. But I basically agree with you and I'm hardly a member of some fringey subversive minority. I'm a middle-class, middle-aged, mother of two who lives in a mid-sized Midwestern city and writes for a mainstream media organization.

As for us having "invested so much we have to keep them busy," I'm sure that's not what's going through the heads of anybody outside the departments themselves, or at least the government. I like to believe that many of us, if we were fully informed, would rather have the money back to divert to more constructive projects, or even to keep for ourselves.

Americans aren't constantly paranoid or rabidly hawkish, they're just underinformed. Too many of us (not the majority, let's hope, but who knows what percentage) would be clicking over to People or TMZ at this point to see what those krazy Kardashians are up to. And some of us are brainwashed by right-wingers to think their biggest tax problem is lazy poor people living on the dole, rather than rich people and the military, um, living on the dole.