GostHacked Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 It's about selective moral standards. If you want to condemn murderers, condemn them all. We try, but for ONCE stick to the topic at hand, and leave the Israel bashing to the other threads. Quote
Big Guy Posted December 17, 2014 Author Report Posted December 17, 2014 According to international analysts, the intent was to send a message to the Pakistan military. The targeted school was on military grounds and was a private school catering to Pakistan military officers and officials. The Pakistan military had been playing both sides of the street but recently, the USA had put the screws to them and the Pakistan military began to target Taliban strongholds and helping USA drones to assassinate Taliban officials. By attacking the children in the school, the message was that the Taliban can penetrate Pakistan military compounds at will. Also, if USA drones continue to target Taliban with their children being "collateral damage" then the Taliban will target directly the children of Pakistan military. Killing innocents under any conditions is an uncivilized, horrendous and barbaric act - no matter what excuse is given. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Wilber Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 When innocents are killed as collateral damage, whether the operation should have been carried out at all is open to debate but when they are the targets in the first place, it is not. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
marcus Posted December 17, 2014 Report Posted December 17, 2014 (edited) According to international analysts, the intent was to send a message to the Pakistan military. The targeted school was on military grounds and was a private school catering to Pakistan military officers and officials. The Pakistan military had been playing both sides of the street but recently, the USA had put the screws to them and the Pakistan military began to target Taliban strongholds and helping USA drones to assassinate Taliban officials. By attacking the children in the school, the message was that the Taliban can penetrate Pakistan military compounds at will. Also, if USA drones continue to target Taliban with their children being "collateral damage" then the Taliban will target directly the children of Pakistan military. Killing innocents under any conditions is an uncivilized, horrendous and barbaric act - no matter what excuse is given. Perhaps if Taliban had shot missiles from airplanes into the schools, then it would have been acceptable to some people in this forum. It wouldn't be so barbaric, but rather, more hi-tech. Edited December 17, 2014 by marcus Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Hudson Jones Posted December 18, 2014 Report Posted December 18, 2014 We try, but for ONCE stick to the topic at hand, and leave the Israel bashing to the other threads. You don't seem to get it. This is not about Israel bashing. This is about confronting the double standards of those who are selective about morality. Quote When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always. Gandhi
Guest Posted December 18, 2014 Report Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Everybody gets it. There are people on this site who equate the accidental killing of innocents during a legitimate operation to neutralize an enemy force (who might be using those innocents as a shield) with the deliberate murder of children at school. It's not hard to get. Edited December 18, 2014 by bcsapper Quote
Big Guy Posted December 18, 2014 Author Report Posted December 18, 2014 I guess it would depend what one considers a "legitimate" operation. I do not accept any operation as "legitimate" if there is a possibility that children will be killed. When you get to operations where the killing of children is expected then you are approaching war crimes territory. When you specifically target children then you have lost your humanity. I still find it interesting that some posters try to equate the level of outrage of the killing with the intent and the end result. So if it turns out well then it was worth the cost. The old, "The end justifies the means". We know where that leads. In Pakistan about 150 kids were murdered to attain an end with which we disagree. Therefore it is an atrocity. In Gaza, well over 150 kids were murdered to attain an end some on this board agree with. Therefore it is collateral damage. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki tens of thousands of children were murdered to attain an end with which most of us agree. Therefore it is the price they paid for our peace. (Anybody ask them?) In Pakistan the Taliban knew that they were killing kids. In Gaza the Israelis knew that they were killing kids. In Japan the Americans knew that they were killing kids. I really do not care about the reason kids are murdered, their deaths are unacceptable and should be dealt with as murder or war crimes. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Big Guy Posted December 18, 2014 Author Report Posted December 18, 2014 And like I said. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
marcus Posted December 18, 2014 Report Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) Everybody gets it. There are people on this site who equate the accidental killing of innocents during a legitimate operation to neutralize an enemy force (who might be using those innocents as a shield) with the deliberate murder of children at school. It's not hard to get. Sure. You can go with the narrative of the military which has killed over 1000 civilians in a few weeks and who tries to justify the slaughter or you can go with the unbiased reports of several human rights organizations that have shown that in only rare occasions civilians were used as human shields by the local militia while in more occasions, civilians were used as human shields by the military which has been repeatedly shown to have committed war crimes. When the Israeli military wages assaults on Gaza, their spokesmen, former officials and sympathetic journalists blanket the airwaves to justify their military policies as targeted and precise. But during this attack on Gaza–and previous assaults–a consensus among human rights groups has emerged: Israel is committing war crimes in strikes that are wiping out civilians. Since the start of Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge,” Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and United Nations officials–the heavyweights when it comes to interpreting international law–have all issued reports and statements slamming Israel for violations of international law. Those organizations have also said Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups firing rockets are committing war crimes since their volleys are indiscriminately aimed at Israeli civilians. Link What you are doing bcsapper, is repeating Israel's b.s. B.s. which has been shown to be b.s. Yesterday, Human Rights Watch published the results of their investigation into four separate strikes in Gaza that they say amount to war crimes. The organization laid into Israel’s practice of bombing the homes of alleged Palestinian militants. “Civilian structures such as residential homes become lawful targets only when they are being used for military purposes,” the report states. “Attacks targeting civilians or civilian property are unlawful, as are attacks that do not or cannot discriminate between civilians and combatants.” Israel has claimed that these attacks on civilian homes occur because they are used as “command and control” centers by Hamas and other groups–but Human Rights Watch dismissed those claims, saying there was no evidence to justify them. Edited December 18, 2014 by marcus Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Big Guy Posted December 18, 2014 Author Report Posted December 18, 2014 I find it interesting when we refer to recent military excursions as part of a war. I look at a war as being a conflict where you are shooting at people and people are shooting at you. These latest "excursions" in the Middle East by Western and Israeli military is a deadly military exercise. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. We fly over, dropping bombs to kill people and ruin infrastructure and them fly home. Nobody is shooting back. This is war? Or we have some guy sitting in a darkened room in Phoenix Arizona in front of his monitor, remotely flying a drone into another country's air space, hitting a button and releasing missiles aimed at some guys driving in a truck in Yemen. This is war? What do you call shooting at and killing people when you are in no danger of getting hurt or killed yourself? Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Guest Posted December 18, 2014 Report Posted December 18, 2014 I'm sure the first person to use a rock against a fist suffered from the same moral dilemma. Quote
Black Dog Posted December 18, 2014 Report Posted December 18, 2014 Why are we talking about Israel when the Taliban specifically claimed this attack was retaliation for U.S. drone strikes? Quote
Big Guy Posted December 18, 2014 Author Report Posted December 18, 2014 But the guy with the rock is still in danger of getting hit by the fist. It is also tough to get hit by a rock a few thousand feet up in the air. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 18, 2014 Report Posted December 18, 2014 ....I really do not care about the reason kids are murdered, their deaths are unacceptable and should be dealt with as murder or war crimes. This is not logical. So called "war crimes" are not just for death and injuries to "children". Ironically, "safe and legal" abortions are. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted December 18, 2014 Report Posted December 18, 2014 (edited) I can see Hudson's point. Why not the same condemnation when thousands of Palestinian children were killed by Israel forces. Because that never happened except in your mind. "We have killed all the children in the auditorium. What do we do now?" Edited December 18, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
AngusThermopyle Posted December 18, 2014 Report Posted December 18, 2014 What do you call shooting at and killing people when you are in no danger of getting hurt or killed yourself? A major advantage. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
Guest Posted December 19, 2014 Report Posted December 19, 2014 But the guy with the rock is still in danger of getting hit by the fist. It is also tough to get hit by a rock a few thousand feet up in the air. Well, I'm not talking about the ballistics so much as the notion that one wouldn't want to give one's troops all the protection possible. Phoenix Arizona is just very, very good body armour. I really have no problem with my side having better equipment than theirs. Quote
Wilber Posted December 19, 2014 Report Posted December 19, 2014 Well, I'm not talking about the ballistics so much as the notion that one wouldn't want to give one's troops all the protection possible. Phoenix Arizona is just very, very good body armour. I really have no problem with my side having better equipment than theirs. Only a fool wants a fair fight. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
WestCoastRunner Posted December 19, 2014 Report Posted December 19, 2014 Because that never happened except in your mind. And in the minds of the parents of the children who were slaughtered. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Guest Posted December 19, 2014 Report Posted December 19, 2014 Would you think, then, that condemnation should be standardized, regardless of the intent shown? Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted December 19, 2014 Report Posted December 19, 2014 Would you think, then, that condemnation should be standardized, regardless of the intent shown? Who are you responding to? Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Guest Posted December 19, 2014 Report Posted December 19, 2014 Who are you responding to? Damn these page breaks. It was you. Quote
Wilber Posted December 19, 2014 Report Posted December 19, 2014 Would you think, then, that condemnation should be standardized, regardless of the intent shown? Nope, can't do it. Our law differentiates between, first and second class murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death etc. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest Posted December 19, 2014 Report Posted December 19, 2014 Nope, can't do it. Our law differentiates between, first and second class murder, manslaughter, criminal negligence causing death etc. That's my opinion, too. There are levels of horror, even in wartime. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.