Author Topic: The Terrorist U.S.A.  (Read 11276 times)

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,352
  • I'm marching for her!
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2013, 06:48:22 pm »
The bombing of Dresden was covered in the Kurt Vonnegutt novel Slaughterhouse Five which is a classic book that most American students read.
May 2019 be better for us all.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,424
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2013, 12:30:35 am »
4. I believe that the 100,000 dead civilian Iraqis is just a figurative number that makes good stories for the media. I don't think anyone really knows exactly how many there are. I also don't think anyone knows for certain that all of them were killed by Americans. How many of those people were killed by IEDs built by their own countrymen? How many of them were killed when a shell slammed into a building that was fired by someone from a Jihadist organization who was there to kill Americans? I don't think its possible for anyone to know for certain.

The 100,000 figure that I've been using comes from this site:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

As of today, they're listing the count as between 112,804 and 123,437. Here's what they say are their standards:

Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others.

IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.

Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

    IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
    IBC records solely violent deaths.
    IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
    IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised.

IBC builds on innovative uses of new technologies without which this citizens’ initiative would be impossible. The project was founded in January 2003 by volunteers from the UK and USA who felt a responsibility to ensure that the human consequences of military intervention in Iraq were not neglected.

Finally, IBC could not exist without the journalists and media support workers, Iraqi and international, who labour to report war’s daily carnage at the risk, and all too often the cost, of their health or their lives.


I see now that the site explicitly states that not all of the deaths are caused by US-led coalition forces. And no doubt the circumstances in many particular cases are unclear and debatable. But this isn't just a random figurative number bandied about for the sake of good stories in the media. The site apparently makes every effort to be as accurate as possible. In many if not all cases, the circumstances, causes and type of victims are recorded in some detail. More details about their methodology are available on the site.




Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2013, 07:21:27 am »
The 100,000 figure that I've been using comes from this site:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
As of today, they're listing the count as between 112,804 and 123,437. Here's what they say are their standards:

(snip)

I see now that the site explicitly states that not all of the deaths are caused by US-led coalition forces. And no doubt the circumstances in many particular cases are unclear and debatable. But this isn't just a random figurative number bandied about for the sake of good stories in the media. The site apparently makes every effort to be as accurate as possible. In many if not all cases, the circumstances, causes and type of victims are recorded in some detail. More details about their methodology are available on the site.

I figured the actual number was higher than 100,000 which is why I suspected that it was figurative. Maybe people are just rounding off.
  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 #13 on: June 02, 2013, 07:30:30 am »
Targeting civilians is not okay and I consider it terrorism.

Your definition of terrorism is problematic, especially when we're talking about the kind of terrorism we've been fighting since 9/11 .The biggest problem is that the terrorists themselves have been civilians. From Osama Bin Laden, to the Tsarneyev brothers, none of the terrorists were operating as part of a military body, or sanctioned to fight on behalf of a sovereign state. If we were to apply your definition, we would not have been able to go after the people responsible for 9/11, or many of the other acts of terror committed by jihadists worldwide.
  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 #14 on: June 03, 2013, 08:27:39 pm »
Your definition of terrorism is problematic, especially when we're talking about the kind of terrorism we've been fighting since 9/11 .The biggest problem is that the terrorists themselves have been civilians. From Osama Bin Laden, to the Tsarneyev brothers, none of the terrorists were operating as part of a military body, or sanctioned to fight on behalf of a sovereign state. If we were to apply your definition, we would not have been able to go after the people responsible for 9/11, or many of the other acts of terror committed by jihadists worldwide.

Osama bin Laden and the Tsarneyev bothers have (allegedly - I for one, still believe in due process unlike the US (and yes Canadian ) government) targeted civilians, so how is my definition of terrorism problematic?

Here's a somewhat unrelated picture that is worth a thousand words, which I'm sure you'll provide, lol!  It stops at 2011 btw, so some are missing.


Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2013, 11:59:33 pm »
Osama bin Laden and the Tsarneyev bothers have (allegedly - I for one, still believe in due process unlike the US (and yes Canadian ) government) targeted civilians, so how is my definition of terrorism problematic?

The point I'm making is that Osama bin Laden and the Tsarneyev were civilians, and we targeted them with no complaints from most people. Targeting civilians who are enemies of the US is not terrorism.

Here's a somewhat unrelated picture that is worth a thousand words, which I'm sure you'll provide, lol!  It stops at 2011 btw, so some are missing.

I don't need to provide a thousand words to critique yet another one of those meaningless Facebook memes designed to be unanswerable and thus end the conversation. Pictures are not a substitute for meaningful debate.

Besides, the graphic incorrect. Iran did indeed bomb Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. 
  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 #16 on: June 04, 2013, 12:57:49 am »
The point I'm making is that Osama bin Laden and the Tsarneyev were civilians, and we targeted them with no complaints from most people. Targeting civilians who are enemies of the US is not terrorism.

I don't need to provide a thousand words to critique yet another one of those meaningless Facebook memes designed to be unanswerable and thus end the conversation. Pictures are not a substitute for meaningful debate.

Besides, the graphic incorrect. Iran did indeed bomb Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. 

Sometimes memes are pretty damn effective.  Anyway, you are wrong again.

The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via simultaneous invasions by air and land on 22 September 1980. It followed a long history of border disputes, and was motivated by fears that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 would inspire insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority as well as Iraq's desire to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of Iran's revolutionary chaos and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and were quickly repelled; Iran regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive./color]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2013, 06:34:57 am »
Sometimes memes are pretty damn effective.  Anyway, you are wrong again.

The Iran–Iraq War began when Iraq invaded Iran via simultaneous invasions by air and land on 22 September 1980. It followed a long history of border disputes, and was motivated by fears that the Iranian Revolution in 1979 would inspire insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority as well as Iraq's desire to replace Iran as the dominant Persian Gulf state. Although Iraq hoped to take advantage of Iran's revolutionary chaos and attacked without formal warning, they made only limited progress into Iran and were quickly repelled; Iran regained virtually all lost territory by June 1982. For the next six years, Iran was on the offensive./color]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

Effective at stirring emotions, sure. But again, not as a point of debate.

Also you didn't read the article very thoroughly, or you would have seen this:

In preparation for Operation Beit ol-Moqaddas (Jerusalem), the Iranians had launched numerous air raids against Iraq air bases, destroying 47 jets (including Iraq's brand new Mirage F-1 fighter jets from France); this gave the Iranians air superiority over the battlefield while allowing them to monitor Iraqi troop movements.[12]

On 29 April, Iran launched the offensive. 70,000 Revolutionary Guard and Basij members struck on several axes – Bostan, Susangerd, the west bank of the Karun River, and Ahvaz. The Basij launched human wave attacks, which were followed up by the regular army and Revolutionary Guard support along with tanks and helicopters.[12] Under heavy Iranian pressure, the Iraqi forces retreated. By 12 May, Iran had driven out all Iraqi forces from the Susangerd area.[20]:36 The Iranians captured several thousand Iraqi troops and a large number of tanks.[12] Nevertheless, the Iranians took many losses as well, especially among the Basij.

The Iraqis retreated to the Karun River, with only Khorramshahr and a few outlying areas remaining in their possession.[43] Saddam ordered 70,000 troops to be placed around the city of Khorramshahr. The Iraqis created a hastily constructed defence line around the city and outlying areas.[12] To discourage airborne commando landings, the Iraqis also placed metal spikes and destroyed cars in areas likely to be used as troop landing zones. Saddam Hussein even visited Khorramshahr in a dramatic gesture, swearing that the city would never be relinquished.[12] However, Khorramshahr's only resupply point was across the Arvand Roud,[note 2] and the Iranian air force began bombing the supply bridges to the city, while their artillery zeroed in on the besieged garrison.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 03:24:23 pm by milomorris »
  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 #18 on: June 04, 2013, 08:49:48 pm »
Effective at stirring emotions, sure. But again, not as a point of debate.

Also you didn't read the article very thoroughly, or you would have seen this:

In preparation for Operation Beit ol-Moqaddas (Jerusalem), the Iranians had launched numerous air raids against Iraq air bases, destroying 47 jets (including Iraq's brand new Mirage F-1 fighter jets from France); this gave the Iranians air superiority over the battlefield while allowing them to monitor Iraqi troop movements.[12]

On 29 April, Iran launched the offensive. 70,000 Revolutionary Guard and Basij members struck on several axes – Bostan, Susangerd, the west bank of the Karun River, and Ahvaz. The Basij launched human wave attacks, which were followed up by the regular army and Revolutionary Guard support along with tanks and helicopters.[12] Under heavy Iranian pressure, the Iraqi forces retreated. By 12 May, Iran had driven out all Iraqi forces from the Susangerd area.[20]:36 The Iranians captured several thousand Iraqi troops and a large number of tanks.[12] Nevertheless, the Iranians took many losses as well, especially among the Basij.

The Iraqis retreated to the Karun River, with only Khorramshahr and a few outlying areas remaining in their possession.[43] Saddam ordered 70,000 troops to be placed around the city of Khorramshahr. The Iraqis created a hastily constructed defence line around the city and outlying areas.[12] To discourage airborne commando landings, the Iraqis also placed metal spikes and destroyed cars in areas likely to be used as troop landing zones. Saddam Hussein even visited Khorramshahr in a dramatic gesture, swearing that the city would never be relinquished.[12] However, Khorramshahr's only resupply point was across the Arvand Roud,[note 2] and the Iranian air force began bombing the supply bridges to the city, while their artillery zeroed in on the besieged garrison.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

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.

Offline serious crayons

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,424
Re: The Terrorist U.S.A.
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2013, 10:09:24 pm »
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.

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, for one, was not celebrating when Osama bin Laden was killed. I'm glad he was captured. I understood the rationale for killing him and didn't condemn those who did it. But I wasn't saying hooray, either.

But then, I'm against capital punishment, even of unquestionably guilty heinous criminals. Even, I would hope, if, God forbid, the victims ever included a loved one of mine. I simply think killing is wrong and nobody should ever do it except in clear-cut and urgent cases requiring immediate self-defense.