Defending the border

[Bonam]

Lethally armed drones would not be a police weapon, just like fighter jets, long range missiles, submarines, etc, are not police weapons.

[bleeding heart]

At a time and a place that is appropriate for the situation, blowing up terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan is one thing

Point of order: suspected terrorists. (And that's if we give the authorities the benefit of the doubt.)

Surely the distinction is of some value.

[Signals.Cpl]

Point of order: suspected terrorists. (And that's if we give the authorities the benefit of the doubt.)

Surely the distinction is of some value.

Really? I'm pretty sure they know if the guy is or is not a terrorist before they blow him to pieces, I doubt that the US military uses the drones on a hunch that the guy could at point possibly not 100% sure but there is the chance that he was a terrorist. Do they cause collateral damage and casualties? Yes, do I agree with that? On most cases no but from where I stand, if the missiles start coming, the target more than earned them.

[bleeding heart]

Really? I'm pretty sure they know if the guy is or is not a terrorist before they blow him to pieces,

I don't think so.

but from where I stand, if the missiles start coming, the target more than earned them.

If you say so. I don't think it's nearly so clear.

[Signals.Cpl]

I don't think so.

So you think the US randomly bombs the sh*t out of some house for the fun of it?

If you say so. I don't think it's nearly so clear.

It is quite that clear, sometimes mistakes are made which is unfortunate but for the most part if you commit terrorist acts you can expect a visit from the drones.

[bleeding heart]

So you think the US randomly bombs the sh*t out of some house for the fun of it?

????

No.

I'm saying that official government pronouncements, echoed by media cheerleaders, gives us close to zero actual information.

Here's Glenn Greenwald on the subject:

Virtually every time the U.S. fires a missile from a drone and ends the lives of Muslims, American media outlets dutifully trumpet in

headlines that the dead were militants even though those media outlets literally do not have the slightest idea of who was actually killed. They simply cite always-unnamed officials claiming that the dead were militants. Its the most obvious and inexcusable form of rank propaganda: media outlets continuously propagating a vital claim without having the slightest idea if its true.

I would humbly suggest that this is precisely your own tactic here, Signals.

Greenwald then quotes the NYTimes:

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

That's such a jaw-dropper, that I recommend reading it twice.

In short, if you are a "military-aged male" and you are killed by a drone atatck...you are guilty, unless you can prove your innocence...after your death.

One can scarcly imagine a more perfect tautology, which allows indiscriminate killing without likely repercussions.

http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/

It is quite that clear, sometimes mistakes are made which is unfortunate but for the most part if you commit terrorist acts you can expect a visit from the drones.

Or if you're a male between the age of fifteen and fifty... I mean, that's powerful evidence of guilt, isn't it?

In a related story, the administration is considering handing out medals of "bravery" to guys wiping out folks on a video screen. The courage of such soldiers truly is heartwarming, I must admit.

Edited August 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Army Guy]

I'm saying that official government pronouncements, echoed by media cheerleaders, gives us close to zero actual information.

what is it your looking for a blow by blow play.

Virtually every time the U.S. fires a missile from a drone and ends the lives of Muslims, American media outlets dutifully trumpet in

headlines that the dead were ”militants” – even though those media outlets literally do not have the slightest idea of who was actually killed. They simply cite always-unnamed “officials” claiming that the dead were “militants.” It’s the most obvious and inexcusable form of rank propaganda: media outlets continuously propagating a vital claim without having the slightest idea if it’s true.

You already answered this question, that Sigs Cpl asked, do you think the US is attacking random targets just for fun, and would they waste a 1/4 mil dollar missle if the target did not warrent an attack ? you answered NO....so what is the problem....

perhaps you should research the sensor capabilities of these drones, see what they are capable off so you know what the operator sees or could see, there is also a long checklist of items that must be meet before firing, as the operator along with any military pers who kills wrongfully is liable for those deaths....

So if you went to a bikers club house what is the odds that everyone inside is not some how attached to the biker group....insurgents don't hang around anyone that is not related to that group. Launch a missle into this group and the odds are very good that they were somehow an insurgent.

[bleeding heart]

what is it your looking for a blow by blow play.

I'm saying that we should not automatically believe everything leaders tell us.

That's an elementary democratic principle.

If you prefer reflexive obeience to Power, that's your issue.

Further, I said the news media should not act as stenographers, but should view official pronouncements with suspicion. This is doubly true when people are actually getting killed.

Interestingly, it is precisely when people are getting killed that the media (and some of the more--defensive memebrs of the public) are least suspicious.

And why not? It's not as a country like the United States would ever be involved in mass murder, or supprot state terrorism with huge casualties. Right?

Oh, wait......

You already answered this question, that Sigs Cpl asked, do you think the US is attacking random targets just for fun, and would they waste a 1/4 mil dollar missle if the target did not warrent an attack ? you answered NO....so what is the problem....

perhaps you should research the sensor capabilities of these drones, see what they are capable off so you know what the operator sees or could see, there is also a long checklist of items that must be meet before firing, as the operator along with any military pers who kills wrongfully is liable for those deaths....

So if you went to a bikers club house what is the odds that everyone inside is not some how attached to the biker group....insurgents don't hang around anyone that is not related to that group. Launch a missle into this group and the odds are very good that they were somehow an insurgent.

[bleeding heart]

what is it your looking for a blow by blow play.

I'm saying that we should not automatically believe everything leaders tell us.

That's an elementary democratic principle.

If you prefer reflexive obedience to Power, that's your issue.

Further, I said the news media should not act as stenographers, but should view official pronouncements with suspicion. This is doubly true when people are actually getting killed.

Interestingly, it is precisely when people are getting killed that the media (and some of the more--defensive members of the public) are least suspicious.

And why not? It's not as a country like the United States would ever be involved in mass murder, or support state terrorism with huge casualties. Right?

Oh, wait......

You already answered this question, that Sigs Cpl asked, do you think the US is attacking random targets just for fun, and would they waste a 1/4 mil dollar missle if the target did not warrent an attack ? you answered NO....so what is the problem....

Wrong. I said that I don't believe the US attacks random targets just for fun (a stupid question anyway, and not meant to be taken seriously); but no, I did not agree that every attack is warranted.

In fact there are only two--exactly two--types of people who believe that every attack is automatically warranted (because they're committed by the US, which does not nothing rotten, ever):

1. Ignorant people who have zero clue what they're talking about;

2. Snivelling little moral cowards, too delicate to even consider uglier possibilities.

perhaps you should research the sensor capabilities of these drones, see what they are capable off so you know what the operator sees or could see, there is also a long checklist of items that must be meet before firing, as the operator along with any military pers who kills wrongfully is liable for those deaths..

The technical aspects of the drones is a sidetrack; I'm talking about the political actions of the civilian leadership, and the decisions that are made.

..

So if you went to a bikers club house what is the odds that everyone inside is not some how attached to the biker group....insurgents don't hang around anyone that is not related to that group. Launch a missle into this group and the odds are very good that they were somehow an insurgent.

You are making a claim that everyone killed is where they...well, where they shouldn't be.

As determined by the Global Boss, the United States of America, presumably.

What's your evidence for this?

Please, tell me: your evidence?

I'm challenging you. Go ahead.

Next thing, you're going to tell me is that you honestly think the "Good" West is merely flitting about fighting "Evil."

Or that the "war on terror" could even make sense...as if a leading terrorist state could be committed to eradicating terrorism.

And Army Guy, let's not forget how this little discussion (me, Signals, and yourself) began: he talked of drone strikes killing "terrorists," and i merely corrected him, with an objective, uncontroversial truth...that we're talking suspected terrorists, not necessarily terrorists.

And you fellows disagree.

Because powerful men make declarations...and you must agree with them!

Sad.

Edited August 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Army Guy]

I'm saying that we should not automatically believe everything leaders tell us.

That's an elementary democratic principle.

If you prefer reflexive obedience to Power, that's your issue.

I never said you should believe everything your told, but the case we are talking about is the killing of insurgents, those decisions never get to the governmental level, well they make the Rules of engagement, then the military carries them out. So in this case launching a missle off a UAV is a military one, and in the US case could be a CIA one as well.

Further, I said the news media should not act as stenographers, but should view official pronouncements with suspicion. This is doubly true when people are actually getting killed.

Further, I said the news media should not act as stenographers, but should view official pronouncements with suspicion. This is doubly true when people are actually getting killed.

Interestingly, it is precisely when people are getting killed that the media (and some of the more--defensive members of the public) are least suspicious.

The media is an industry, it reports what will sell, they do it to make profits, not to report the news as if it was a higher calling. when people are getting killed thats what us the people want to read. How many stories did you read of Canadian soldiers building schools,fire halls, or buying Ambulances....why is that. So on this piont i agree with you 100%. Very rarely do the report news because it is in the publics interest to know...

Wrong. I said that I don't believe the US attacks random targets just for fun (a stupid question anyway, and not meant to be taken seriously); but no, I did not agree that every attack is warranted.

If an attack is not warrented they can or will be held accountable in a court of law, and this happens all the time, with every coalition forces. IE the last American to shoot unarmed Afghan civilains outside of KAF, or the Canadian Capt for shooting that serverly wounded insurgent , anyways i think you get the piont unlawful killing is wrong and is held accountable.

In the case of a UAV the sensor package is extremily good, capale of reading the tags in your underwear at over 30 kms away,and at alt higher than 15,000 ft with sensors this strong the can quickly run down the rules of engagement, are they armed, if yes with what wpns systems, what are they doing ie burying something in the ground, taking up a postion and waiting to ambush something, shooting something....if the answer is yes to any of these questions then you have a green light, things that would stop the process, are they in a religiuos building or building deemed of culture importance, or hospital,historical building, is there to many civilians around , or do you think the insurgents will gather closer aloowing for a max kill factor, the shot will be postphoned until they are closer together.

Once all thses questions are answered and the chain of command says yes the missle is launched...this can take minutes to hours...

In fact there are only two--exactly two--types of people who believe that every attack is automatically warranted (because they're committed by the US, which does not nothing rotten, ever):

1. Ignorant people who have zero clue what they're talking about;

2. Snivelling little moral cowards, too delicate to even consider uglier possibilities.

So for every attack that is carried out and authorised dozens are not....but then again the media is not reporting those are they, and you assumed that all those attacks are NOT nessicary, but which ones, what rules did they break, you just assumed we are human and like to blow shit up....but more than one person is pulling the strings it makes not being accountable very difficult. but i will add not impossiable

You are making a claim that everyone killed is where they...well, where they shouldn't be.

As determined by the Global Boss, the United States of America, presumably.

What's your evidence for this?

Please, tell me: your evidence?

I'm challenging you. Go ahead.

No i'm stating that the ROE's are followed to the letter, and if they have the justification to make the launch they will, i also said that it is very unlikely that those that are are illigal.

A UAV is a high value asset, and are used in many diffent missions, ie taking out high value targets like we see being reported in the media, patroling major supply routes used by coalition forces, providing Spec OPs with an airbourne platform, or confirming intel already gathered such as following a bomb planting team back to their homes, so ground teams can investagate/ attack later, track bombers on route to their targets, follow know insurgents to find out where they go, they are also used in cooperation with other assets such as arty, fast air, ground forces a UAV may spot a IED team buring something on the road, instead of using a 1/4 million dollar missle they may decide to just drop a few rounds of arty on them or call in a gun ship to clean up for them so they can continue mission. But in every case they are following that check list and ROE's to make sure the operator is covered legaly for their actions.

To answer your other question were is the evidence, it's in the tape of the attacks, and the ROE's every attack is taped in serveral places as it can be broadcasted to the assisting unit via live broadcast. so there is hundreds of witinesses.

And you've yet to answer my question if you entered a biker club house would you find anyone inside that was not affiliated with the gang in some way. The insurgents take this to a new level, they are being activily hunted at ever corner, and suspect everyone, very very rarely would they hang out with someone not affiliated with them...ie weddings, gatherings, etc....in these cases with large numbers in attendence if the target is of a high enough importance colatoral damage may be worth the risk.

if they are a lower rank the attack will be waved until later....

Next thing, you're going to tell me is that you honestly think the "Good" West is merely flitting about fighting "Evil."

Or that the "war on terror" could even make sense...as if a leading terrorist state could be committed to eradicating terrorism.

I've never said that the west which does include Canada are perfect angles in everything they do. But in todays world you need to take a side, black or white....there is no grey, or as someone said if given the choose us or them i choose us every time.

I've yet to see any western soldier take the day to peel the skin off an old man, using drugs and pain killers to keep him alive, then stake him out in the blazing sun, that day temps reach over 55 degrees....his crime was talking to us about getting a new well for his village, the taliban decided they would take 12 or more hours to deal his punishment for talking to the infidels....which was me...we got to him just before noon, he died of his wounds waiting for a chopper to arrive, high on morphine our medic gave him still begging us to shot him because the pain was unbarable ...I know some one is going to tell me to stop comparing our crimes with theirs....but i can't it is what drove me to do 4 tours there....we are at war,with these pricks and sometimes you have to crack a few eggs and sometimes inocent people die....but the inocent always pay a higher price...

And Army Guy, let's not forget how this little discussion (me, Signals, and yourself) began: he talked of drone strikes killing "terrorists," and i merely corrected him, with an objective, uncontroversial truth...that we're talking suspected terrorists, not necessarily terrorists.

You can call them anything you want, but when they are armed with automactic wpns, RPGs, or IED's they go from suspected to confirmed, then its missles away. suspected terrorist get more assets assigned to them to confirm perhaps a armed patrol or over flight by light aircraft terrorist will normally engage....that kind of takes the guess work out of it. and thats when you read about it the next day, x amount of insurgents killed in fire fight, or engagement with western forces. and according to the ROE there is nothing suspected about it.

[bleeding heart]

I never said you should believe everything your told, but the case we are talking about is the killing of insurgents, those decisions never get to the governmental level, well they make the Rules of engagement, then the military carries them out. So in this case launching a missle off a UAV is a military one,

No. President Obama is issuing "kill lists," and ordering assasinations, as was "accidentally/on purpose" leaked to the media. He orders them killed--often based on suspicion, not hard facts, a point with which you stubbornly refuse to engage--and then they are killed.

If an attack is not warrented they can or will be held accountable in a court of law,

In every case?

Not only is there no possible way you could know this (bwhich means you're inventing for the sake of "winning" a debate point); it is quite insane that you would take it even as a matter of belief.

As we discussed in another thread, we--and even moreso the United States--has been directly, intentionally and unequivocally involved in acts of terrorism and mass murder.

We're not talking "collateral damage," either...a coward's term, anyway.

When did we suddenly change policy and begin doing everything lawfully and with upright moral reasoning?

Seriously; I'm fascinated to hear about our sea-change in behaviour, especially since no President or Prime Minister has, to my knowledge, announced our new direction in foreign policy.

and this happens all the time, with every coalition forces. IE the last American to shoot unarmed Afghan civilains outside of KAF, or the Canadian Capt for shooting that serverly wounded insurgent , anyways i think you get the piont unlawful killing is wrong and is held accountable.

Oh, I get your point, I just think it's a joke.

How it really works occurs under two different circumstances: one cynical and corrupt, the other laudable and proving the inherent decency and lawfulness of specific individual human beings. (Not The State, or Nations...which have no morality, whatsoever; they're amoral entities by definition.):

1. There's bad press, so the government and military decide they'd better pony up, with money and/or trials, because the PR is bad; this deserves zero credit;

2. Individual members of the military who, to their tremendous credit, sincerely believe in the rule of law, the ROE, rules of conduct, and basic decency...and they expose this or that wrongful action. Sometimes even at career-risk, which I find gratifying and impressive.

But it's certainly not automatic.

As in an earlier discussion on General Anthony Taguba's investigation into the Abu Ghraib Affair, in which he concluded that torture was widespread, systemic, ordered from the top, and that high-ranking military and members of the civilian administration were guilty of War Crimes...the good General did what was right, he took his reponsibilities seriously.

And he was ignored and sidelined, and most media didn't even report it. (And you can't tell me the media avoided it because it wouldn't sell!!!!)

In other words, the truth someties gets out.

It often does not.

For example, were you even aware of the leaked Presidential "kill lists"?

So for every attack that is carried out and authorised dozens are not....but then again the media is not reporting those are they,

Oh, don't worry; the media is just as uncritical of the drone attacks as you are. They're on board. They're with the program, so to speak.

you just assumed we are human and like to blow shit up

Jeez. Are you and Signals going to keep harping on your caricature, of an opinion you attribute to me which I don't hold, and have never held, and have never hinted at in any way?

....but more than one person is pulling the strings it makes not being accountable very difficult. but i will add not impossiable

There's another thing that makes accountability very difficult: a White House directive, in the nature of an Imperium (which, for reasons you don't state, you support and defend): that any military-aged male who is killed is deemed automatically guilty unless it is proven (after his death, mind you!) that he is innocent.

This is insanity.

I understand that you sympathize with the difficulties in precise military operations...I get that.

You evince a lot less sympathy for the difficulties of being an innocent person blown up by American weapons. Their life is...a little more difficult than the Drone warriors, I might contend.

A UAV is a high value asset, and are used in many diffent missions, ie taking out high value targets like we see being reported in the media, patroling major supply routes used by coalition forces, providing Spec OPs with an airbourne platform, or confirming intel already gathered such as following a bomb planting team back to their homes, so ground teams can investagate/ attack later, track bombers on route to their targets, follow know insurgents to find out where they go, they are also used in cooperation with other assets such as arty, fast air, ground forces a UAV may spot a IED team buring something on the road, instead of using a 1/4 million dollar missle they may decide to just drop a few rounds of arty on them or call in a gun ship to clean up for them so they can continue mission. But in every case they are following that check list and ROE's to make sure the operator is covered legaly for their actions.

I have never for one second denied that actual insurgents, "militants," "terrorists," or whatever other conveniently interchangeable term you can think of are targeted and killed.

I'm saying it's only part of the story...based on history, which you ignore, and based on leaks from the highest echelons of power itself.

And you've yet to answer my question if you entered a biker club house would you find anyone inside that was not affiliated with the gang in some way.

That's a stupid question (and I believe I did answer it as such already).

The insurgents take this to a new level, they are being activily hunted at ever corner, and suspect everyone, very very rarely would they hang out with someone not affiliated with them...ie weddings, gatherings, etc....in these cases with large numbers in attendence if the target is of a high enough importance colatoral damage may be worth the risk.

The "risk"!

Yes, the PResident and the video-game techies playing Drone-kill are taking such tremendous risks.

Unlike the weddings and gatherings and so on.....

Man, I just shed a tear for these courageous risk-takers!

I've never said that the west which does include Canada are perfect angles in everything they do. But in todays world you need to take a side, black or white....there is no grey,

Ahhhh. Then what of that earlier discussion about Canada and the US arming the Indonesians, and knowing that they were slaughtering between a hundred and two hundred thousand inncoent people in East Timor with those weapons?

that's collusion in mass murde; collusion in State terror.

I mean openly, outright. No getting around it.

This is world-class criminality on a world-historic level. It's one of the top ten mass slaughters of the postwar era...no mean achievement.

Very few of our terrorist enemies have committed such extreme horrors (though they would if they could, I assume).

Perhaps you'll ignore this point as you did last tiume--since, after all, it points to Canada and the United States (among others: Austrailia, the UK, Japan) as being directly and wilfully culpable in mass state terrorism, wars of aggression, enforced starvation, and so on.....

But if you don't ignore it, tell me: is that a "grey" area....or were we actually the bad guys?

It's a serious question, based on your own criteria.

Either way, it destroys your self-serving and masturbatory answer.

or as someone said if given the choose us or them i choose us every time.

The last refuge of the scoundrel.

I've yet to see any western soldier take the day to peel the skin off an old man, using drugs and pain killers to keep him alive, then stake him out in the blazing sun, that day temps reach over 55 degrees....his crime was talking to us about getting a new well for his village, the taliban decided they would take 12 or more hours to deal his punishment for talking to the infidels....which was me...we got to him just before noon, he died of his wounds waiting for a chopper to arrive, high on morphine our medic gave him still begging us to shot him because the pain was unbarable ...I know some one is going to tell me to stop comparing our crimes with theirs....but i can't it is what drove me to do 4 tours there....we are at war,with these pricks and sometimes you have to crack a few eggs and sometimes inocent people die....but the inocent always pay a higher price...

Where did I compare the CF to the Taliban?

I'm talking about the cold brutality of foreign policy...and that we aren't always in the "right."

You diverting it to some insinuation that I'm denouncing the soldiers on the ground is pretty greasy......

Edited August 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

One example is how those Pakistani soldiers died at the hands of an armed UAV. Their intelligence said they were insurgents, turns out the information they had was wrong. A huge screw up with about 20 dead Pakistani soldiers. This would have been an act of war if this was committed against the USA.

Wedding parties in Afghanistan getting blown up by armed UAVs. Then again those who operate these drones are sitting half way around the world in a safe location within the USA. They are so literally disconnected from the battlefield they are conditioned into believing it is some kind of video game. The guy with the low score buys the beer I guess.

[wyly]

the "enemy" uses a bomb to attack a target, innocents civilians get killed therefore they're terrorists...the "good" guys attack a target with missile launched from drone, innocents are killed but it's their own fault they deserved because they were near the target so therefore they must be terrorists too...the logic or lack of logic exhibited by some people is astounding...

[bleeding heart]

the "enemy" uses a bomb to attack a target, innocents civilians get killed therefore they're terrorists...the "good" guys attack a target with missile launched from drone, innocents are killed but it's their own fault they deserved because they were near the target so therefore they must be terrorists too...the logic or lack of logic exhibited by some people is astounding...

Yes, and it gets worse than that. At least in this scenario, people can claim "mistakes" or "collateral damage," for whatever one thinks such an argument is worth.

But there are cases of outright mass murder, outright collusion with terrorism...and these, too, will be defended.

Astonishing.

Edited August 8, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

One example is how those Pakistani soldiers died at the hands of an armed UAV. Their intelligence said they were insurgents, turns out the information they had was wrong. A huge screw up with about 20 dead Pakistani soldiers. This would have been an act of war if this was committed against the USA.

Wedding parties in Afghanistan getting blown up by armed UAVs. Then again those who operate these drones are sitting half way around the world in a safe location within the USA. They are so literally disconnected from the battlefield they are conditioned into believing it is some kind of video game. The guy with the low score buys the beer I guess.

Thats the problem... our intelligence is notoriously bad.

[GostHacked]

Thats the problem... our intelligence is notoriously bad.

Same thing happened when those Canadian soldiers were killed by an USAF pilot. Who ends up taking responsibility when things go wrong? I really don't know.

[socialist]

Same thing happened when those Canadian soldiers were killed by an USAF pilot. Who ends up taking responsibility when things go wrong? I really don't know.

Didn't alex jones have a theory about that? LOL!

[GostHacked]

Didn't alex jones have a theory about that? LOL!

He probably does, as do you. Your point?

[Army Guy]

No. President Obama is issuing "kill lists," and ordering assasinations, as was "accidentally/on purpose" leaked to the media. He orders them killed--often based on suspicion, not hard facts, a point with which you stubbornly refuse to engage--and then they are killed.

The same list Osama bin ladin was on is this the list your refering to, and his mery band of commanders in the field, is this the list you are having a hard time with. That has upset and disgusted you to the piont you are continuily bringing it up.

These list have been existance since the begining of time, leaders of the enemy movement have often had thier names placed on arrest or kill lists, ( i added arrest, but in reliality how many would allow themselfs to be arrested) let me ask you this if Hilter could have been killed by allied military forces do you think it would have saved any lives, would it have been publically acceptable to do so.

You mention these orders are based on suspicion, with no hard facts, what hard facts do "you" have that these decisions are being made based on someones whilly nilly briefing, and the President of the United States decides he'll place his office behind the decision without any "according to you" evidence at all, that he picks a name out of the Afghanistan phone book and orders this name ceases to exist by sun up....I think your pissed that this info is not being released with out all the facts being made public.

In every case?

Not only is there no possible way you could know this (bwhich means you're inventing for the sake of "winning" a debate point); it is quite insane that you would take it even as a matter of belief.

Your absolutly right there is no way to know this is ALL situations, in fact i believe i said that it would not be impossiable to fool the current system. but unlikely. what i told you was my experiences, and the reason i believe it would be extremily hard to get away with anything , the same vidio footage the pilot sees is noramlly feed into the support TOC tactical operations center, it's a live feed, normally there is a large number in attendence, this feed is then feed to the guys out in the field ....if an engagements was not legal according to ROE it would be reported rather quickly, as there is to many witiness to not to say anything. that and the fact your jobs are on the line, along with legal consquences....and although i've discribed a Canadian action, the same systems are used through out the coalition, and they operate basically under the same rules as we do, the exception is a CIA feed in which i assume runs the same way, but can not confirm that....

But then again the same statement would also apply to yourself, how would you have info about any illigal killings or engagements unless you have first hand military knowledge of it happening with tape or pictures. as no one else has access.

We're not talking "collateral damage," either...a coward's term, anyway.

A cowards term, a term invented by our polictical masters, one used to discribe to civilians the deaths of inocent civilians on the battlefield....they are unavoidable, more civilians will die in conflicts than all the soldiers combined from both sides that is just a regrettable fact from war.

There's another thing that makes accountability very difficult: a White House directive, in the nature of an Imperium (which, for reasons you don't state, you support and defend): that any military-aged male who is killed is deemed automatically guilty unless it is proven (after his death, mind you!) that he is innocent.

I have to assume that the higher government has our intersets at the fore front, and if they do not will be held accountable, as i have to becuase it is what i believe in, in order for me to carry out my job, close with and destroy the enemy...So yes i do for the most part believe in our system and way of doing things, i did say for the most part,

This is insanity.

I understand that you sympathize with the difficulties in precise military operations...I get that.

You evince a lot less sympathy for the difficulties of being an innocent person blown up by American weapons. They're life is...a little more difficult than the Drone warriors, I might contend.

It's not that i don't have sympathy , to which i do and it is regretable that these deaths occur, but i've also come to the conclusion that war is one of mans most retarded endevours that only evil lives and breathes, one that very rarely good comes out of, and yet we have manged to put a man on the moon, and soon one to mars, but have yet invented a way to stop war , violence, nor do i think we will ever, i decided to do this job because it was one way to make a difference for my family....i or you will not stop innocent people from dieing in conflicts, we can only limit their numbers....

Ahhhh. Then what of that earlier discussion about Canada and the US arming the Indonesians, and knowing that they were slaughtering between a hundred and two hundred thousand inncoent people in East Timor with those weapons?

that's collusion in mass murde; collusion in State terror.

I mean openly, outright. No getting around it.

This is world-class criminality on a world-historic level. It's one of the top ten mass slaughters of the postwar era...no mean achievement.

Very few of our terrorist enemies have committed such extreme horrors (though they would if they could, I assume).

Any different from just turning our heads pretending it is not happening, hoping it would go away, Canadian watched it every morning on the news while eating our breakfast , all we did was change the channel. so we get involved and our government make the wrong choices, we accuse them of state run terrorism....but it's ok to sit back and watch as thousands are slaughtered....like we do everyday...turn the news on right now, and tell me we could not make a difference some where...

Perhaps you'll ignore this point as you did last tiume--since, after all, it points to Canada and the United States (among others: Austrailia, the UK, Japan) as being directly and wilfully culpable in mass state terrorism, wars of aggression, enforced starvation, and so on.....

But if you don't ignore it, tell me: is that a "grey" area....or were we actually the bad guys?

It's a serious question, based on your own criteria.

Either way, it destroys your self-serving and masturbatory answer.

I've seen both sides of the fence, and nobody does not have blood on their hands, and yet you as guilty as the rest of us, you sir have made your choice as well, you've decided it is not worth the risk of leaving , but where would you go, so you've decided that Canada may be the lesser of the evils....or you would have left long ago based on your opinions and values which you claim on line here. So while i have taken sides in the sand, put my beliefs into action, you sir live on our side and condemn us....but you are still on our side, one of us...why is that.

Where did I compare the CF to the Taliban?

I'm talking about the cold brutality of foreign policy...and that we aren't always in the "right."

You diverting it to some insinuation that I'm denouncing the soldiers on the ground is pretty greasy......

I never did say anything or the sort, nor was i pushing my statement in that direction ...our foreign policies are dictated by the results of bad guys actions. pronounceing we are as bad as they are is retarded and while they all boil down to death and destruction, one is clearly more brutal than the other. But i was not saying you were denouncing soldiers.

[bleeding heart]

You mention these orders are based on suspicion, with no hard facts, what hard facts do "you" have that these decisions are being made based on someones whilly nilly briefing,

First of all, intelligence briefings are often based on incompetence...that's not my assessment, that's what our political leaders imply every time a terrible msitake is made; that was the Bush administration's excuse for the catastrophe called "the Iraq War."

So...either our political Masters are lying to us about military intelligence--which proves my point--or else military intelligence is fequently incompetent--which also proves my point.

and the President of the United States decides he'll place his office behind the decision without any "according to you" evidence at all,

They got into the Iraq War based on lies. They got into the Vietnam War based on lies. Virtually their entire terror-ridden Latin American interventionist policies in the 1980's was based on a pack of lies.

So, yes, they are aware they can get away with quite a bit. What helps them is that members of the press, the public, and the intelligentsia are quite eager to lick their boots and talk about their pretty, shiny motives.

Your absolutly right there is no way to know this is ALL situations, in fact i believe i said that it would not be impossiable to fool the current system. but unlikely. what i told you was my experiences, and the reason i believe it would be extremily hard to get away with anything

Like I said, they've gotten away with mass murder, illegal invasions, and helping out state terrorists and smaller terrorist groups.

With total impunity.

But you keep talking about military ROE's, which aren't my point: soldiers are under far stricter legal guidelines than a country's actual political/military policy.....under which they are virtually no rules, at least none that are routinely followed.

Weak countries get punished for misdeeds; strong countries do what they will.

They do what they like. I've cited numerous examples, with millions dead. What more evidence do we need? All deaths aren't "unfortunate mistakes." I wish I could see it that way.

But then again the same statement would also apply to yourself, how would you have info about any illigal killings or engagements unless you have first hand military knowledge of it happening with tape or pictures. as no one else has access.

The onus is not on the private citizen to prove his government is behaving badly (though fortunately we do have many citizens doing just that...generally despised and ridiculed, which I guess is the price you pay for criticizing Power).

No, the onus is on the Powerful, on the authorities, to justify their behaviour. And when the issue is violence, the bar should be set very high.

Anytime they cannot rationally justify their uise of power...that use of power is illegitimate. That's a fundamental democratic principle.

I understand the need for secrecy...but this is abused, too, continually. Governments love secrecy, understandably. Hell, since the wikileaks scandal broke, authorties have been unable to name one single breach of secrecy that has caused any deaths of our soldiers, diplomats, or allies.

This alone suggests they are misusing their "secrecy" rights and responsibilities.

I have to assume that the higher government has our intersets at the fore front,

Who is "our"? They might have geostrategic interests that do not clearly align with those of the generral public.

and if they do not will be held accountable

Except for collusion in terrorism and mass murder, and except for illegal invasions. Except for "anti-terrorism" polciies that increase terrorism, therefore making them partially culpable.

Sure, individual soldiers will get nailed for what they do wrong...but these are very minor crimes compared to what the Big Boys do. And they are never held to account.

It's not that i don't have sympathy , to which i do and it is regretable that these deaths occur,

I know, Army Guy, and I regret implying otherwise. That's out of line, and I apologize.

Any different from just turning our heads pretending it is not happening, hoping it would go away, Canadian watched it every morning on the news while eating our breakfast , all we did was change the channel. so we get involved and our government make the wrong choices, we accuse them of state run terrorism....but it's ok to sit back and watch as thousands are slaughtered....like we do everyday...turn the news on right now, and tell me we could not make a difference some where..

Yes, and I don't shy from these cold facts. In a democratic country, we're at least partially responsible for what is done in our name. Sometimes the country heads in the right direction, sometimes it's hard to tell...but sometimes it's pretty obviously wrong.

There was no good reason to arm the Indonesian Generals as they slaughtered the people of East Timor. No good justification; no Soviets or Chinese communists in sight, and the Indonesian President was as bad as Saddam Hussein.

If one of our enemies had done what we did, we would rightly call them out on it, denounce them, maybe even impose sanctions. Certainly we owe the survivors huge reparations, in my opinion, though of course that's unthinkable. But we had economic interests in pleasing Indonesia, and political interests in backing US plans.

It ain't right.

I never did say anything or the sort, nor was i pushing my statement in that direction ...our foreign policies are dictated by the results of bad guys actions.

I think it's a lot more complicated than that.

Edited August 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Army Guy]

First of all, intelligence briefings are often based on incompetence...that's not my assessment, that's what our political leaders imply every time a terrible msitake is made; that was the Bush administration's excuse for the catastrophe called "the Iraq War."

So...either our political Masters are lying to us about military intelligence--which proves my point--or else military intelligence is fequently incompetent--which also proves my point.

Intel never has the full picture, it is what is pieced together from other pieces that have been collected and is interputed by specialist in the area, and no it is not always right, but intel has an expiration date, on top of the enemy spewing out bad intel, in an an attempt to lead you astray,not everyone interputes it the same way, so it gets many interputations on the way up the chain of command. making it hard to get the true picture. But putting someones name on a kill list takes many ,many peices of intel, and while it all may not be right, i doubt the decision to place a name of these lists is taken lightly , or without any evidence, take Osama for instance, would you say they made a huge mistake or did he deserve what he got....

They got into the Iraq War based on lies. They got into the Vietnam War based on lies. Virtually their entire terror-ridden Latin American interventionist policies in the 1980's was based on a pack of lies.

So, yes, they are aware they can get away with quite a bit. What helps them is that members of the press, the public, and the intelligentsia are quite eager to lick their boots and talk about their pretty, shiny motives.

DO you believe that the president of the US set out to lie to his citizens one day one, or do you believe he made that decision with the best info and intel he had at the time...

Now in the future he may of been proved that he was mislead or had faulty info, but does that mean he lied or just made a bad decision. because even presidents are held accountable, even impeached.

Except for collusion in terrorism and mass murder, and except for illegal invasions. Except for "anti-terrorism" polciies that increase terrorism, therefore making them partially culpable.

If there is enough proof then why has not someone taken them to court be it national court or inter national court...do you not think once it got out there thier own citizens would want justice....I still have faith in the system.

[bleeding heart]

If there is enough proof then why has not someone taken them to court be it national court or inter national court...do you not think once it got out there thier own citizens would want justice....I still have faith in the system.

This isn't really a response. You're saying no crimes have been committed...because charges haven't been laid?

So you don't think the Iranians, the Saudis, the Chinese, and on and on, have committed any crimes? Because you have faith in the system?

I don't get it.

[waldo]

Harper Conservatives and Documentary Reality TeeVee! --- Toews approved TV show filming B.C. immigration raids

crass exploitation for entertainment... say it ain't so Vic, say it ain't so!

[Guest Derek L]

Harper Conservatives and Documentary Reality TeeVee! --- Toews approved TV show filming B.C. immigration raids

crass exploitation for entertainment... say it ain't so Vic, say it ain't so!

Hey now........No difference then Cops or Serve and Protect...........And truth be told, if CBSA is doing their job all the power to them……..I bet some folks, like my union carpenter neighbour, will take some solace in the fact that some of their (illegal) cheaper competition is being tossed out……….

[waldo]

Hey now........No difference then Cops or Serve and Protect...........

did not realize there was also Harper Conservative PMO and Ministerial oversight/engagement in both those other tee-vee examples (I assume that's what they are)