|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The US Gov't is Guilty of Murder | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
ringo writes: When you're killing people, whether justifiably or not, a little hypocrisy is just icing on the cake. Sure, just don't expect to be admired or liked for it.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is an act of war but not against Pakistan.
It is also not murder.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
jar writes: It is an act of war but not against Pakistan. That's ok then- I'm sure the villagers who lost family understand.
It is also not murder. You know, I think that's exactly what the guys thought when they flew into those tall buildings. A distinction without a difference. or, if you prefer, "god is on our side".Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
The U.S. probably isn't going to be liked or admired internationally no matter what they do. It just makes sense to do things as efficiently as possible.
Sure, just don't expect to be admired or liked for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Well that's a good way to rationalise any action I guess. "they hate us anyway, stuff it."
Once in a while it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to do something that the rest of the world might admire; generally when people like you, they don't try to kill you. People not wanting to kill you is a good and efficient way of not being killed. Just a thought from left field.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
tangle writes: jar writes: It is an act of war but not against Pakistan. That's ok then- I'm sure the villagers who lost family understand. I doubt that the villagers understand and question whether they even understand the concept of "Pakistan". But that is also totally irrelevant to the topic.
tangle writes: jar writes: It is also not murder. You know, I think that's exactly what the guys thought when they flew into those tall buildings. A distinction without a difference. or, if you prefer, "god is on our side". That too is totally irrelevant and factually wrong. The people who flew into the towers were not acting on the orders of a legitimate Nation State. What they did is legally murder. Edited by jar, : hit wrong keyAnyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I'm just pointing out how silly all of the puffed-up outrage is. Shooting back may not be the best way to respond to terrorism but if they're going to do it, drones seem to be a better way than either of the alternatives that you mentioned.
Well that's a good way to rationalise any action I guess. "they hate us anyway, stuff it."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
What they did is legally murder. Then they should be treated like criminals and not like enemy soldiers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
They would be if they were within US jurisdiction, but they are not. It is also not simply individuals but a terrorist organization.
In that case I applaud non-conventional responses like the drone attacks. That is how we should have replied from the beginning instead of invading either Afghanistan or Iraq.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Domino Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 53 Joined: |
jar writes: In that case I applaud non-conventional responses like the drone attacks. That is how we should have replied from the beginning instead of invading either Afghanistan or Iraq. How about the "non-conventional" techniques the United States used to interrogate suspected terrorists in Guantnamo Bay? Do you condone those as well? To speak more directly, any expansion of the techniques the US uses to apprehend its enemies sends the country further down a slippery slope. Just a couple of weeks ago, Obama adjusted the definition of "combatant" to "all military-age males in a strike zone." From here, it wouldn't be so difficult for the administration to once again redefine the term as all males in a strike zone, military-age or not. Or all people in a strike zone, regardless of age or gender. Not to mention the aforementioned example of the United States's use of torture on suspected terrorists. If waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions aren't enough to draw any strong international censure against the United States, why couldn't the US try even more forceful tactics? Perhaps a "shoot first and ask questions later" policy? Some of these examples may be extreme, but my point is that the use of tactics such as drone strikes constitutes a slippery slope. The question of whether the US has committed murder is not one of simple definition - it is one of degree."The universe is a lot more complicated than you might think, even if you start from a position of thinking that it's pretty damn complicated to begin with." - Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Domino Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 53 Joined: |
Panda writes: I have never described civilian deaths as 'necessary'; it is simply the unavoidable consequence of using ordnance in an uncontrolled environment. If civilian deaths are an "unavoidable consequence" of war, and the United States is fighting a necessary war (as some in this thread seem to suggest), then the civilian deaths are by extension also necessary. However, if the war is not necessary, then neither are the civilian deaths...and that hardly helps the case for America, does it? Regardless, I see your point - that the discussion of whether America's actions constitute murder is not necessarily related to the discussion of whether America's actions are justified.
Panda writes: Could you provide a list of who these 9 people were, so that I can try and confirm that they were not militant targets? After further research I've found that I was incorrect: at least one of the other people killed, Ibrahim al-Banna, was a senior al-Qaeda media operative. As such, it's tough to argue that the death of Abdul-Rahman al-Awlaki, the American citizen killed in the same strike, was anything but accidental. That being the case, let me briefly venture into the hypothetical. Suppose the US government originally launched the strike with the intent to kill the 16-year-old as well, thinking he was an al-Qaeda operative, but later found out that he was an innocent American citizen. Would this change the picture at all? It would certainly qualify the killing of the civilian as somewhat premeditated. Although the particular case of al-Banna and al-Awlaki does not resemble this hypothetical scenario, I imagine that other civilians may have been mistaken for militants and subsequently killed in this way before.
Panda writes: But that is an article about the article I questioned the credibility of.All you have done is linked to a web-page higher up the pile. The New York Times has high journalistic standards and I trust that they know their sources well. Besides, I can't go into much more detail about the original report, as it was apparently assembled from "witness reports and files from reporters on the ground" that likely have not been documented on the Internet. Edited by Domino, : No reason given."The universe is a lot more complicated than you might think, even if you start from a position of thinking that it's pretty damn complicated to begin with." - Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
They would be if they were within US jurisdiction, but they are not. Well aint that just the fucking point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Dogmafood writes:
Repeating your baseless claim is stupid. Alright, I will then.But since that is all you have, I guess you have no other option. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Dogmafood writes:
Good. Panda writes: Yes that's the one. quote:Is this definition good enough for you? And according to International and American law, the deaths are not murder. And that explains "why there is no international outcry against the killing of civilians in drone attacks." <\thread> Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Slippery slope arguments are for those who are incapable of thinking and can only handle bumper sticker reasoning.
How about the "non-conventional" techniques the United States used to interrogate suspected terrorists in Guantnamo Bay? Do you condone those as well? That might be an interesting discussion but it is irrelevant to this topic.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Domino writes:
I agree. ...the discussion of whether America's actions constitute murder is not necessarily related to the discussion of whether America's actions are justified. Murder is reasonable easy to ascertain. But the problem with justification is that it is subjective.America only needs to justify its behaviour to its voting public and selected international communities. It is also impossible for America to make everyone happy. Some people will claim that going to war is reprehensible and some people will claim that not going to war is reprehensible. Personally, I am undecided about whether the war is justified. There are good and bad aspects to the war.But the necessary secrecy of military operations, the politically driven secrecy of governments and the anti-American propaganda means I will probably never be able to decide one way or another. Domino writes:
Killing people based on faulty intelligence happens frequently in all wars. That being the case, let me briefly venture into the hypothetical. Suppose the US government originally launched the strike with the intent to kill the 16-year-old as well, thinking he was an al-Qaeda operative, but later found out that he was an innocent American citizen. Would this change the picture at all? It would certainly qualify the killing of the civilian as somewhat premeditated. Although the particular case of al-Banna and al-Awlaki does not resemble this hypothetical scenario, I imagine that other civilians may have been mistaken for militants and subsequently killed in this way before.I doubt that '100% accurate intelligence' actually exists. Finding out that the attack was based on false information would not make it murder.As I am sure you know, time makes fools of us all. quote: "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024