Al Quaeda No 2. We Don't Kill Innocents

[White Doors]

Only cowards have problems admitting that they were wrong.

[myata]

Oops! speaking of fatal flaws.. suprised no one else picked this up, but I know myata leaves alot of fatal flaws on each of her posts..

The intent wasn't there? A bomb dropped on a city was supposed to explode in what? flowers? kisses?

Power plants destroyed so people would warm themselves with thoughts of democracy?

Power structure demolished so that criminals would start preaching brotherly love?

Smart thinking, fatal flaws ... You should sure try it in on your next occasion

BTW nice drool in the rest of your post, congrats on excellent progress (as the drools go)

[AngusThermopyle]

BTW nice drool in the rest of your post, congrats on excellent progress (as the drools go)

Good to see you have that whole juvenile insult thing under control. When you decide you want to talk like a big person let me know.

[White Doors]

lol. Now she is squirming. First she said that intent doesn't matter and now she admits that it does but is insinuating that the Allies and Canada presumably intentionally kill civilians.

awesome!

[myata]

lol. Now she is squirming. First she said that intent doesn't matter and now she admits that it does but is insinuating that the Allies and Canada presumably intentionally kill civilians.

awesome!

The intent - to start unprovoked, unnecessary war - a war what is bound to take away lives of innocents, in large numbers - was there, no, you wouldn't argue with that? as intentional firing a loaded gun would kill - no matter what claimed "intent" might have been. Or did the invasion troops just would themselves in the middle of another country, and had to defend themselves (and install the democrasy, as an afterthought).

As to general interpretation of intent in criminal justice, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine that it should mean very specific things. If someone were to run a truck in a cafe full of people and claim that they didn't intend to kill anybody, only to teach the owner a lesson, I'm sure it wouldn't fly, they'd be convicted for the deaths. The bunch started a war, and they should be responsible for all innocent deaths it resulted in. Their glorious intent should count as much as the one in the example.

Does it mean that their guilt is the same as somebody's deliberately exterminating civilians? It's up to the justice system to decide. What I'm saying is that the bunch should be held to justice for the war that they started and which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

BTW, recalling the case of Saddam, if memory serves me well, he was never convicted of that (i.e deliberately exterminating civilians) in a credible independent court. Why I wonder? The evidence was of him signing execution orders. Same kind of orders that, if I'm not mistaken, GWB signs, in their dozens if not hundreds, annually. Also, a matter of perspective? I understand, he was a nasty guy, a dictator, but to call him a mass killer of innocents, one'd have to give him a fair day in court. Not for his sake as much as for yours. To be able to say it with substance. Or it's just their say against his say.. Like WMD .. or 45 minutes ballistic attack

To Angus: I get it that you've taken a big persons's decision to quit. Could it be for the lack of better argument? No, how could anybody think that, it sure must the call of adult maturity. Anyways, see ya, hope you'll do better next time.

[White Doors]

I'm not a lawyer

never let it be said that you don't occasionally speak the truth!!

[AngusThermopyle]

I get it that you've taken a big persons's decision to quit.

Actually I've taken a big persons decision to not feed someone who is capable of nothing more than juvenile insults.

Run along now, go insult the other kids in the playground.

[myata]

Actually I've taken a big persons decision to not feed someone who is capable of nothing more than juvenile insults.

And you are congratulated on your big persons decision. Don't say it unless you can defend your argument. After all, this is a discussion board, not to be confused with an AA for rightwingers to comfort in sharing their worked up emotions.

BTW did you mean this: "

... I never realised you were such a big fan of AQ and OBL.",

or, maybe, this:

" ... and excuse the actions of these animals, so, yes, it appears that you are an apologist for Al Quaeda.",

speaking of insults? No, those wouldn't be as much of a "juvenile" as they're routinely repeated by the mature grown up rightwing media, have to give you this.

[Guest American Woman]

...in the Canadian legal system, intent DOES matter. In fact, it is paramount.

Maybe you should look up 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, reckless homicide and accidents for a starter.

Myata does have a point because actions determine "intent." For example, if a cop shoots several shots into a crowd of people in order to get a criminal who has 'escaped' into the crowd, killing several people in the process, knowing full well that innocent people would be hit, and his defense is "my intent wasn't to kill the innocent people in the crowd, my intent was to kill the criminal" would his "intent" matter in the Canadian legal system?

Edited April 8, 2008 by American Woman

[White Doors]

Myata does have a point because actions determine "intent." For example, if a cop shoots several shots into a crowd of people in order to get a criminal who has 'escaped' into the crowd, killing several people in the process, knowing full well that innocent people would be hit, and his defense is "my intent wasn't to kill the innocent people in the crowd, my intent was to kill the criminal" would his "intent" matter in the Canadian legal system?

A thinly veiled bait.

you can do better than that AW.

So let's change it around.

What if the criminal was firing at the cops and the cops were firing back, but some people who had no weapons were standing in front of the criminal shielding him so as to play on the morality of the police in the hopes that this would protect the criminal and enable him to kill more police?

Would the police have a right to shoot the unarmed people to get to the criminal or will the police have to let the criminal shoot at them?

Your example was a very poor, simplistic view on the world.

My example is much more apt and realistic.

Edited April 8, 2008 by White Doors

[Guest American Woman]

A thinly veiled bait.

you can do better than that AW.

So let's change it around.

What if the criminal was firing at the cops and the cops were firing back, but some people who had no weapons were standing in front of the criminal shielding him so as to play on the morality of the police in the hopes that this would protect the criminal and enable him to kill more police?

Would the police have a right to shoot the unarmed people to get to the criminal or will the police have to let the criminal shoot at them?

Your example was a very poor, simplistic view on the world.

My example is much more apt and realistic.

Bait?? How is asking a question "bait?" Perhaps you don't like the question and don't want to answer it, but that doesn't make it bait in any way, shape, or form.

My example is right on. The civilians we've dropped bombs on in Iraq and Afghanistan were not "shielding" the people we are wanting to kill. They are just as innocent as the people in the crowd in my scenario. So instead of "turning it around" into something it's not, how about just answering the question?

Edited April 8, 2008 by American Woman

[guyser]

For example, if a cop shoots several shots into a crowd of people in order to get a criminal who has 'escaped' into the crowd, killing several people in the process, knowing full well that innocent people would be hit, and his defense is "my intent wasn't to kill the innocent people in the crowd, my intent was to kill the criminal" would his "intent" matter in the Canadian legal system?

Since he wont I will.

Manslaughter charges hopefully. Intent would not matter, he knew or ought to have known that innocent people would be killed. Police Act charges and failing that his cop buddies should arrest him.

Rule: Never fire the gun when you are unsure of the backdrop.

[guyser]

What if the criminal was firing at the cops and the cops were firing back, but some people who had no weapons were standing in front of the criminal shielding him so as to play on the morality of the police in the hopes that this would protect the criminal and enable him to kill more police?

Would the police have a right to shoot the unarmed people to get to the criminal or will the police have to let the criminal shoot at them?

If they are standing in front to provide cover they are considered to be part of the criminals gang. Shoot em all.

If they are innocent bystanders then the cop does not discharge his gun. Let the BG get away. Not worth the life of an innocent to blast away. if the cops do, criminal charges or Police Act. Either way, would be one dumb cop.

My example is much more apt and realistic.

Apt and realistic? Uh no it wasnt.

Your Q was baiting far beyond AW's.

[M.Dancer]

A thinly veiled bait.

you can do better than that AW.

So let's change it around.

What if the criminal was firing at the cops and the cops were firing back, but some people who had no weapons were standing in front of the criminal shielding him so as to play on the morality of the police in the hopes that this would protect the criminal and enable him to kill more police?

Would the police have a right to shoot the unarmed people to get to the criminal or will the police have to let the criminal shoot at them?

Your example was a very poor, simplistic view on the world.

My example is much more apt and realistic.

Not to mention the laws of war and criminal law are no where near the same. While there is no carte blanche to attack military targets nested in with civilians, the law is quite clear that if the value or importance of the targets warrents, and there is effort to minimize the loss of civilian life and property, the attack may be justified.

Early in the 2nd Gulf war CNN had an interview with an Airforce Ordinance officer who gave a presentation of the various types of weapons that woul/ could be used in civilian areas. These weapons differed greatly from the open battle field type in the way they exploded/shape of the damage they caused. That is cold comfort to the victims being used as shields....but none the less, the rules of war were being followed.

[myata]

No, Dancer,

the question is not whether some (self defined and imposed) rules were followed or not; the war itself was illegal and unnecessary; innocent bystanders were killed. Somebody ought to be held responsible for that, don't you think?

And if not, then how do you prove that it's bad when some baddy takes away innocent lives? Not through the action, i.e its result, obviously; baddies will have to work a lot to even start approaching our scores; must be something else ... of course! we know that we're good guys, right? that in itself justifies whatever we do. Nice and simple. Works for us. And for them, too.

[AngusThermopyle]

Finally an answer without insults.

You are correct insofar as war being bad. In fact after serving 20 years I came to conclude that in war the concept of good and bad can become interchangeable and in some cases the lines can become so blurred between the two that they become difficult to tell apart. Given that, all we can do is abide by the will of our leaders and the majority who empower them.

The assumption here is that I support the war in Iraq. That assumption is wrong. From the start I questioned why it was happening actually, as well as the morality of it. The war in Afghanistan is another story. We went to Afghanistan under both a U.N. and NATO mandate, we also went on a moral basis. Some may question this moral basis, however, personally I don't. Those who believe the Taliban were a force for good are deluding themselves. They are not.

We don't go out of our way to kill civilians in Afghanistan, quite the opposite in fact. The very very vast majority of civilian deaths are caused by...you got it...the Taliban. No one talks about the rebuilding efforts being undertaken, the wells dug, the schools and hospitals built. All we here are unsubstantiated claims of killing civilians. If Canadians do kill civilians I can assure you it is unintentional and all efforts will have been made to avoid doing so.

Unfortunately it is war and as such civilians will die in the course of it, thats just the way it is and neither you nor I can change that. It's only my opinion but I think that if the Taliban do regain power you would see a hell of a lot more civilian deaths than now in Afghanistan.

Oh, by the way, just so you know. I do not support the Taliban or Al Quaeda in any way shape or form and if every one of them were wiped off the face of the earth I would not shed a tear nor loose any sleep over it.

[myata]

Likewise,

Some may question this moral basis, however, personally I don't. Those who believe the Taliban were a force for good are deluding themselves. They are not.

So, there's such thing as a moral basis of a war. The same old bad war, that nobody, yourself included, likes (but has to do anyways). Let's discuss this fine point. What gives us the right to go half world away and start a full blown war that is bound to take away lives in massive numbers? Obviously, we aren't talking survival or even self defence in any credible way here (Taleban taking over humankind? Al Quaeda marching on Washington?). But if not that, then what?

BTW for all their sins, I do not recall anybody accusing Taleban of crimes against humanity; nor were they proven to be implicated in the 9/11 attacks; there's any number of regimes, including some of US's buddies, which routinely suppress people's freedom, disregard democracy (when it doesn't suit them) and excercise "terror" in various forms, against opposition, which has no way of getting to power via legitimate means; if so, why is it that only Taleban are painted as the ultimate threat to the humankind? source of all evil in the universe?

You know why: because some people somewhere want the war to go on; with them at the helm, of course. And for you to believe in war, to support it, to pay for it (ultimately), you must be scared; even if by a backward super orthodox religious group, holding control of a remote undeveloped country; or by a splinter terror network bent on destruction; anything goes to get you running for shelter, looking up to the war gurus for salvation; by the time quesions will be asked, they'll be enjoying comfy retirements, preaching others how to maintain courage and will to fight.

We don't go out of our way to kill civilians in Afghanistan, quite the opposite in fact. The very very vast majority of civilian deaths are caused by...you got it...the Taliban. No one talks about the rebuilding efforts being undertaken, the wells dug, the schools and hospitals built. All we here are unsubstantiated claims of killing civilians. If Canadians do kill civilians I can assure you it is unintentional and all efforts will have been made to avoid doing so.

...

Unfortunately it is war and as such civilians will die in the course of it, thats

Correct, in any war civilians will be hurt and killed. So, again, if war in principle is bad, why is it right to go half the world away and start a real full blown war to instruct locals in a better way of life? And who should be ultimately responsible for the "price" of education?

..if the Taliban do regain power you would see a hell of a lot more civilian deaths than now in Afghanistan.

Except, they already were in power; no need to guess and theorize here; and without admiring them in any way, they managed to keep country in order after decades of fighting and without massive civil casualties, or foreign troops.

[White Doors]

War is bad, other things are worse.

[jazzer]

Yes. Absolutely. No doubt in my mind had Hussein stayed in power by the time he was done there would be 500,000 dead but that is not the point.

Well I guess 500,000 is as good a number as any to pull out of one's ass. Sheer speculation my friend. Saddam was well contained, sanctions were working and most of the world knew that. Walk down a street outside the Green Zone in Baghdad and ask the average citizen if they are better off now or before Saddam? Yeah, he was a dictator but there are many around the world. What do you want to do? Pick them off one at a time? I'd rather we fix the UN and help to avoid situations like Danfur and Zwanda than march into countries that pose no threat and invade.

[M.Dancer]

Well I guess 500,000 is as good a number as any to pull out of one's ass. Sheer speculation my friend. Saddam was well contained, sanctions were working and most of the world knew that. Walk down a street outside the Green Zone in Baghdad and ask the average citizen if they are better off now or before Saddam?

I imagine if you walk down the streets of Arbil and ask an average citizne the answer would be a resounding yes.

I'd rather we fix the UN and help to avoid situations like Danfur and Zwanda than march into countries that pose no threat and invade.

I'm confused....Given that Darfur is no threat to us, why would you want to march into it?

To assume that Iraq was benign is naive.

[AngusThermopyle]

nor were they proven to be implicated in the 9/11 attacks

They most certainly were, they were providing safe haven for Al Quaeda.

without massive civil casualties, or foreign troops.

Sure thing. Stoning women in the streets, public executions, reduction of women to slaves, destruction of ancient artifacts to name just a few. Peachy keen bunch they are indeed.

Now how bout you acknowledge the good that is being done by our troops. You know, digging wells, building schools and hospitals, training Afghanis to take control of their lives. Or is all that irrelevant in your opinion?

Edited April 9, 2008 by AngusThermopyle

[myata]

They most certainly were, they were providing safe haven for Al Quaeda.

Which still isn't the same thing... Amazing how specific, careful and differentiating we want to be judging our own actions, while opposition deserves only one broad categorization - yeah, that one, axis etc whatever, of evil.

Sure thing. Stoning women in the streets, public executions, reduction of women to slaves, destruction of ancient artifacts to name just a few. Peachy keen bunch they are indeed.

Indeed. Yet that was their way of life... accepted and even supported by most ... or we'd have evidence of massive resistance ... at least on the same scale we're seeing now; and they didn't have 50,000 superbly armed foriegin troops to do all the heavy fighting for them; nor loads of money flowing into the country ... i.e self consistency ... same glorious ideal that's still shining in the end of our glorious but ternuous path; but enough before you call me an apologist of Taleban or maybe the very evil incarnate.

Here's the thing: imagine the tables are turned; some immensly superior power comes around and asks us gently but firmly to change our ways; instantly; now; e.g. give up your favourite SUV and jump on a bicycle; move into a commune home; and so on; you know, good for the envirnment... so one day you don't perceive them to be serious, and the ultimatum expires; they move in, burn a few super polluting power stations, along with bits and pieces of the army trying to resist, and unfortunately, some collateral damage of innocent civilians; then pick a few extreme environmental geeks and ask them to form a free republic of the clean new world forever; with their battlestations floating around every corner, understandably, for stability and peace; do I see you cheering, dancing and apploading?

So here, again, the question you're avoiding to answer: who gave us, no them, perfectors, democratizers, and the like, the right, moral or whatever I care very little, to go into other places and impose their understanding of how they should live and be, and by force? And then they do that, why do they fuss, squirm, sing and preach when they are met with resistance; they came with force; force is what they met; isn't it supposed to be the normal order of things (in their understanding of the world)??

Hint: no I don't think they are that naive; it's just different things for different people: force and fire to have the objectives met; songs of democracy and piece (and evil incarnate that resists them at every nook and with every hook) - for you.

Now how bout you acknowledge the good that is being done by our troops ...

There was a saying about uninvited dogooder, can't recall it though, seriously, can anybody help? Especially when they break a few things before even starting on with good deeds..

..... training Afghanis to take control of their lives.

Right... The #1 adage of colonizers since times immemorial.. them locals simply can't manage their own lives, how can we resist to help?

[bush_cheney2004]

...So here, again, the question you're avoiding to answer: who gave us, no them, perfectors, democratizers, and the like, the right, moral or whatever I care very little, to go into other places and impose their understanding of how they should live and be, and by force?.....

Oh, that question has an easy answer.....the "right" is an amalgam of will and means to do so, irrespective of morals. Yes, we have thin veneers of legitimacy manufactured for the purpose (e.g. UN), but in the end, the "right" is not given by anybody but ourselves.

[Oleg Bach]

Which still isn't the same thing... Amazing how specific, careful and differentiating we want to be judging our own actions, while opposition deserves only one broad categorization - yeah, that one, axis etc whatever, of evil.

Indeed. Yet that was their way of life... accepted and even supported by most ... or we'd have evidence of massive resistance ... at least on the same scale we're seeing now; and they didn't have 50,000 superbly armed foriegin troops to do all the heavy fighting for them; nor loads of money flowing into the country ... i.e self consistency ... same glorious ideal that's still shining in the end of our glorious but ternuous path; but enough before you call me an apologist of Taleban or maybe the very evil incarnate.

Here's the thing: imagine the tables are turned; some immensly superior power comes around and asks us gently but firmly to change our ways; instantly; now; e.g. give up your favourite SUV and jump on a bicycle; move into a commune home; and so on; you know, good for the envirnment... so one day you don't perceive them to be serious, and the ultimatum expires; they move in, burn a few super polluting power stations, along with bits and pieces of the army trying to resist, and unfortunately, some collateral damage of innocent civilians; then pick a few extreme environmental geeks and ask them to form a free republic of the clean new world forever; with their battlestations floating around every corner, understandably, for stability and peace; do I see you cheering, dancing and apploading?

So here, again, the question you're avoiding to answer: who gave us, no them, perfectors, democratizers, and the like, the right, moral or whatever I care very little, to go into other places and impose their understanding of how they should live and be, and by force? And then they do that, why do they fuss, squirm, sing and preach when they are met with resistance; they came with force; force is what they met; isn't it supposed to be the normal order of things (in their understanding of the world)??

Hint: no I don't think they are that naive; it's just different things for different people: force and fire to have the objectives met; songs of democracy and piece (and evil incarnate that resists them at every nook and with every hook) - for you.

There was a saying about uninvited dogooder, can't recall it though, seriously, can anybody help? Especially when they break a few things before even starting on with good deeds..

Right... The #1 adage of colonizers since times immemorial.. them locals simply can't manage their own lives, how can we resist to help?

Remeber that poor dupe of a Canadian soldier, the wonderful dogooder that knelt at a camp fire in the hills of Afghanistan...to reason with the elders and make friends with what was submissive due to force Taliban...he cooed and smiled and give candy to the kids and then someone walked up behind him and wacked him on the back of his liberal scull with an axe.. You have to remember. Even though we are conditioned as a common populace in Canada and America that we are do-gooders....which we are..BUT our handlers are not and the Taliban know that we are dupes and invaders....we are just plain stupid. Imagine if we in Ontario ..had but one crop and it was pot..at that was our economy. AND we had rival gangs and growers that were part of our traditional social landscape...and suddenly we have thousands of Mexican troops that were dogooders swarming all over us with full armed force...well - I would say that the old rusty axe would be dragged out from under the wood pile and we would be making us some taco shells in a very Scythian manner..we are territorial if we have any common survialist sense - so are they.

[AngusThermopyle]

Indeed. Yet that was their way of life... accepted and even supported by most ... or we'd have evidence of massive resistance ... at least on the same scale we're seeing now; and they didn't have 50,000 superbly armed foriegin troops to do all the heavy fighting for them; nor loads of money flowing into the country ... i.e self consistency ... same glorious ideal that's still shining in the end of our glorious but ternuous path; but enough before you call me an apologist of Taleban or maybe the very evil incarnate.

Here's the thing: imagine the tables are turned; some immensly superior power comes around and asks us gently but firmly to change our ways; instantly; now; e.g. give up your favourite SUV and jump on a bicycle; move into a commune home; and so on; you know, good for the envirnment... so one day you don't perceive them to be serious, and the ultimatum expires; they move in, burn a few super polluting power stations, along with bits and pieces of the army trying to resist, and unfortunately, some collateral damage of innocent civilians; then pick a few extreme environmental geeks and ask them to form a free republic of the clean new world forever; with their battlestations floating around every corner, understandably, for stability and peace; do I see you cheering, dancing and apploading?

So here, again, the question you're avoiding to answer: who gave us, no them, perfectors, democratizers, and the like, the right, moral or whatever I care very little, to go into other places and impose their understanding of how they should live and be, and by force? And then they do that, why do they fuss, squirm, sing and preach when they are met with resistance; they came with force; force is what they met; isn't it supposed to be the normal order of things (in their understanding of the world)??

Hint: no I don't think they are that naive; it's just different things for different people: force and fire to have the objectives met; songs of democracy and piece (and evil incarnate that resists them at every nook and with every hook) - for you.

All you did with your previously well articulated post is convince me that I'm talking to someone who has never really experienced what people will do. Someone who has never ventured beyond their comfortable safe existence. Before you pontificate on the relative virtues and condemnations of war you might want to learn a little about this world you exist so comfortably within.

Others here have tried to explain to you in the past that beyond the safe bounds of our country there are a lot of very bad places. Places where you would be lucky to survive more than a few days. Do you understand what I'm trying to tell you? These are places where life is cheaper than the time it takes to think about it.

What you fail to understand is that all of your attempted sophistry means nothing when you are actually there. By there I dont mean myself or other Canadians, I mean when any human being has to live in such a place under such conditions. Believe me, their lives suck in a major way, I''ve spoken to them, protected them and lived amongst them, have you?

At that point what happens is a joint understanding. Us "Invaders" interact with the people around us, with time an uneasy symbiosis occurs, neither one willing to give total trust, but both sides make overtures towards that goal. With time you actually make friends, those friends in turn breed fiends. However in the end sometimes even those who have become friends can and sometimes do turn on you. Doesn't matter though, you still keep trying and cultivating.

So...apart from bitching and moaning, what exactly have you done and learned?

Edited April 10, 2008 by AngusThermopyle