There seems to be this attitude in the U.S. that foreign lives are somehow worth less. Maybe it's the term "collateral damage" that diminishes the reality that the innocents killed every day overseas are human beings.
I used to be a hardass about it not mattering as long as the U.S. accomplished its goals. I know see that I was wrong to believe that. All it took was an unjust war under false pretenses to give me back a little of my soul.
That's not true. If the US Government suddenly declared the Los Angeles Crips a terrorist organization, advised Los Angeles resident to either vacate or to cease assistance of the crips, most people in the US would not have any sort of problem with Compton being bombed to smithereens.
Whether or not you agree with that method of dealing with the Crips is irrelevant. My point is that it's not a matter of "foreigners are less important than we are."
...If you were a Syrian, which side would you consider terrorists?
Nice way to put it. Easiest question of the day, too.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
What I don't get....
Why is it so bad for these people to support al-qaeda? It's a fucking war, right? Are they supposed to be supporting the people launching the missiles that are killing their countrymen? ...but let me guess, we're doing them a favour by getting the 'terrorists' out, right?
If you were a Syrian, which side would you consider terrorists?
The question is really if I was a Syrian, and I considered my side to be terrorists, my own government would torture me by sticking a searing hot metal rod into my rectum.
What you're forgetting is that when Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people were jumping for joy.
So, this means that they saw their own government as the terrorists.
That's not true. If the US Government suddenly declared the Los Angeles Crips a terrorist organization, advised Los Angeles resident to either vacate or to cease assistance of the crips, most people in the US would not have any sort of problem with Compton being bombed to smithereens.
Whether or not you agree with that method of dealing with the Crips is irrelevant. My point is that it's not a matter of "foreigners are less important than we are."
OK, that's just a silly hypothetical question that has nothing to do with fighting a war in the Middle East and killing civilians in Syria.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Provide me evidence that residents don't actively support Al Qeada. Let's talk common sense here. Do you really think that when Al Qeada operatives move into local towns villages, they are treated as unwelcome invaders? If that's what you think, then that would explain a lot about your point of view.
I'm not saying they are treated as unwelcome invaders. People might be neutral, they might be afraid, they might think it's the best thing ever.
Al-Qaeda is fighting the US because of their presence in the Middle East. The US continues to kill innocent people and destroy infrastructure. I wonder how many will now, because of this, actively support al-Qaeda.
You haven't really answered my question because you changed the circumstances of the hypothetical scenario upon which the question is based.
I said I would move too but it was you who mentioned moving away, so it was you who changed the circumstances of the scenario, remember?
and if some al qaeda was found living in whatever city/town you are in right now, you would be for the US landing helicopters and gunning the town up? Dropping some bombs? killing some kids?
If the overwhelming majority of people in my neighborhood were supplying, sheltering, and acting as look-outs for Al Qeada, I would move to a different neighborhood.
So, please... just answer the question instead of avoiding it. The question was not what you'd do if you knew al-Qaeda lived near you. The question was and still is:
"you would be for the US landing helicopters and gunning the town up? Dropping some bombs? killing some kids?"
I'm not the one who volunteered those changes. You were. So, that begs the question: Why does it matter if the residents support Al Qeada or if they can willfully move? They're still civilians, right? If so, then what difference does it make?
As I cleary and irrefutably pointed out, sponger, it was you who changed the question.
OK, that's just a silly hypothetical question that has nothing to do with fighting a war in the Middle East and killing civilians in Syria.
You mean you didn't know there's a congressional effort underway to declare major US street gangs as domestic terrorists? That there is a "war" being fought between US authorities and street gangs? That "innocent civilians" are often caught in the crossfire of this war? And that Americans generally feel that those deaths are acceptable given the severity of gang activity?
It's not a silly hypothetical scenario. It's a relavant hypothetical scenario that needed further explaining so that you could understand it.
The question is really if I was a Syrian, and I considered my side to be terrorists, my own government would torture me by sticking a searing hot metal rod into my rectum.
What you're forgetting is that when Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people were jumping for joy.
So, this means that they saw their own government as the terrorists.
huh?
actually no, the real question was, "If you were Syrian, which side would you consider a terrorist?" nice attempt to dodge it with the graphic depiction of those savage Syrians, tho :rolleyes:
Pretty sure you just confirmed that the US is doing them a favour, just like they did the Iraqi's a favour...and the Afghani's....and the Iranians...and and and... I don't remember many Iraqi's cheering, aside from that staged statue toppling....and esp not over the last few years.
You mean you didn't know there's a congressional effort underway to declare major US street gangs as domestic terrorists? That there is a "war" being fought between US authorities and street gangs? That "innocent civilians" are often caught in the crossfire of this war? And that Americans generally feel that those deaths are acceptable given the severity of gang activity?
It's not a silly hypothetical scenario. It's a relavant hypothetical scenario that needed further explaining so that you could understand it.
Hey, if there is a "congressional effort" to designate those gangs as terrorists, it's well hidden. The only reason the gov't would want to do that is to use Patriot Act investigatory tools against those gangs.
The U.S. gov't couldn't (and wouldn't) level L.A. because of gangs, but they will do that in foreign countries. It's not the same. It's a silly hypothetical.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
huh?
actually no, the real question was, "If you were Syrian, which side would you consider a terrorist?" nice attempt to dodge it with the graphic depiction of those savage Syrians, tho :rolleyes:
Pretty sure you just confirmed that the US is doing them a favour, just like they did the Iraqi's a favour...and the Afghani's....and the Iranians...and and and... I don't remember many Iraqi's cheering, aside from that staged statue toppling....and esp not over the last few years.
The world isn't as simple as what country you live in. That is, it isn't a matter of "Are you a Syrian or aren't you?"
Within the country of Syria, there may very well exist varying levels of sentiment toward the Syrian government.
And, as I tried to illustrate this rather simple yet truthful point, you think I'm dodging the question? I know you are smarter than that.
I don't remember many Iraqi's cheering, aside from that staged statue toppling....and esp not over the last few years
So the Iraqis weren't happy to see Saddam toppled? You mean they didn't want him hanged after all?
As I cleary and irrefutably pointed out, sponger, it was you who changed the question.
I don't see why I should oblige you when you can't be honest.
YOU are the one who couldn't answer my question without creating the assumption that the residents either don't support Al Qeada or are unable to move.
First of all, prove to me that "the overwhelming majority of people" in that town were al-Qaeda, and prove that the people in this town knew that "the overwhelming majority" was Al-Qaeda. I didn't see that mentioned anywhere.
But did you ever consider that some people might not have the luxury of dropping their life and moving?
So my point is that you couldn't answer my question without changing the circumstances. I'd like to move forward from this, but that requires your acknowledgement of the obvious.
The world isn't as simple as what country you live in. That is, it isn't a matter of "Are you a Syrian or aren't you?"
Within the country of Syria, there may very well exist varying levels of sentiment toward the Syrian government.
And, as I tried to illustrate this rather simple yet truthful point, you think I'm dodging the question? I know you are smarter than that.
So the Iraqis weren't happy to see Saddam toppled? You mean they didn't want him hanged after all?
Of course there is varying levels of support for their government. I'd like to see a poll asking them how much they support raids by a foreign power, on civilian villages. I'd also like to see the support figures for Al-Qaeda (even tho from what I read, this isn't about the 'real' Al-Qaeda, only Al-Qaeda in Iraq :rolleyes: ). If the majority of the country supports them, should we launch a full-scale invasion of Syria too?
And I'm sure there was varying levels of support for Saddam as well. I'm sure there were people cheering. I'm also sure the overwhelming majority of people in Iraq would have rather seen him ousted another way, ANY other way than mass bombings and a five year occupation. Take a look at the US support over there (coming from mostly US or west-based pollsters, of course)...even the people that are happy their country was levelled to get rid of Saddam have wanted the US out for YEARS.
Hey, if there is a "congressional effort" to designate those gangs as terrorists, it's well hidden. The only reason the gov't would want to do that is to use Patriot Act investigatory tools against those gangs.
The U.S. gov't couldn't (and wouldn't) level L.A. because of gangs, but they will do that in foreign countries. It's not the same. It's a silly hypothetical.
That's beside the point. The point is that innocent people are killed in the crossfire between gangs and police practically every day. Yet, you don't see Americans up in arms about it.
Of course there is varying levels of support for their government. I'd like to see a poll asking them how much they support raids by a foreign power, on civilian villages. I'd also like to see the support figures for Al-Qaeda (even tho from what I read, this isn't about the 'real' Al-Qaeda, only Al-Qaeda in Iraq :rolleyes: ). If the majority of the country supports them, should we launch a full-scale invasion of Syria too?
Why are you equating a cross-border helicopter strike with a full-scale invasion?
And, yes, practically everyone is well aware that there's an Al Qeada in Iraq and a "Real" Al Qeada. Would you feel better if the targets were "real" Al Qeada?
And I'm sure there was varying levels of support for Saddam as well. I'm sure there were people cheering. I'm also sure the overwhelming majority of people in Iraq would have rather seen him ousted another way, ANY other way than mass bombings and a five year occupation. Take a look at the US support over there (coming from mostly US or west-based pollsters, of course)...even the people that are happy their country was levelled to get rid of Saddam have wanted the US out for YEARS.
Please enlighten me on how you would go about removing Saddam without mass bombings and a five year occupation?
That's beside the point. The point is that innocent people are killed in the crossfire between gangs and police practically every day. Yet, you don't see Americans up in arms about it.
You want to start the anti-gang-violence thread and I'll be the first person to post on it.
You want to talk about why you believe the lives of innocents in Syria don't matter, here's your forum.
One common thread in both those issues is the fact that both groups are comprised of poor, brown people.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
I don't see why I should oblige you when you can't be honest.
YOU are the one who couldn't answer my question without creating the assumption that the residents either don't support Al Qeada or are unable to move. So my point is that you couldn't answer my question without changing the circumstances. I'd like to move forward from this, but that requires your acknowledgement of the obvious.
I did. I said I'd move too, but you mentioned moving away even though it was not part of the original question.
The question is: would you be ok with it if the US bombed your town and killed innocent people if some al-Qaeda was found to be living in your town?
You said: "I would move." Not an answer to the question at all.
Then you said "My point is that you would move too."
Good point, but you still didn't answer the question.
Furthermore, it is you who changed it:
"If the overwhelming majority of people in my neighborhood were supplying, sheltering, and acting as look-outs for Al Qeada, I would move to a different neighborhood."
That's not in the original question. You made that up. So you changed the circumstances of the original question.
"if some al qaeda was found living in whatever city/town you are in right now"
Notice the "some" and notice your "overwhelming majority".
You want to talk about why you believe the lives of innocents in Syria don't matter, here's your forum.
I said that Americans don't view the deaths of foreigners as being less important than domestic deaths.
Why do you insist on twisting that into something entirely different. Is it because you live in some weird fantasy world where everyone who doesn't live with their heads in the clouds must be blood-thirsty evil murderers?
I said that Americans don't view the deaths of foreigners as being less important than domestic deaths.
Why do you insist on twisting that into something entirely different. Is it because you live in some weird fantasy world where everyone who doesn't live with their heads in the clouds must be blood-thirsty evil murderers?
YOU. What do YOU believe? That's the question. It's not what you think Americans believe. It's about what YOU believe.
You don't like to answer questions, do you?
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
I did. I said I'd move too, but you mentioned moving away even though it was not part of the original question.
The question is: would you be ok with it if the US bombed your town and killed innocent people if some al-Qaeda was found to be living in your town?
You said: "I would move." Not an answer to the question at all.
Then you said "My point is that you would move too."
Good point, but you still didn't answer the question.
Furthermore, it is you who changed it:
"If the overwhelming majority of people in my neighborhood were supplying, sheltering, and acting as look-outs for Al Qeada, I would move to a different neighborhood."
That's not in the original question. You made that up. So you changed the circumstances of the original question.
"if some al qaeda was found living in whatever city/town you are in right now"
Notice the "some" and notice your "overwhelming majority".
Yes, I redirected the question back to its original. You said you'd move, not an answer, fine. By this I tried to take away the option of moving away.
If you hadn't introduced the totally irrelevant theme of moving in the first place, I would not have written this.
Actually, you have the sequence all wrong. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's unintentional on your part.
My first response to the question about bombs, which was posed by MrBrian, was the following:
If the overwhelming majority of people in my neighborhood were supplying, sheltering, and acting as look-outs for Al Qeada, I would move to a different neighborhood.
Your first direct response to that statement other than a repetition of MrBrian's question, was the following:
First of all, prove to me that "the overwhelming majority of people" in that town were al-Qaeda, and prove that the people in this town knew that "the overwhelming majority" was Al-Qaeda.
Then I had to explain to you that I was not saying that the residents were Al Qeada.
Finally, you responded to my first statement with the following:
I probably wouldn't. But did you ever consider that some people might not have the luxury of dropping their life and moving?
Furthermore, does the "overwhelming majority" actively support al-Qaeda? Where did you read that? Please provide sources that say that the majority of this town actively supports Al-Qaeda.
So, apparently, you do think it's important to know whether or not the residents support al qeada or can willfully move when discussing the subject of civilian casualties.
So, like I have been saying, those are parameters I had mentioned in my first post, and you couldn't directly respond to it without customizing those parameters to your preferences.
Again, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just got mixed up.
YOU. What do YOU believe? That's the question. It's not what you think Americans believe. It's about what YOU believe.
You don't like to answer questions, do you?
It's not that I don't like to answer questions. It's that I don't answer loaded questions that are based on false pretenses.
Point in fact is that you still refuse to acknowledge the concept that Americans consider foreign and domestic deaths as having equal importance.
You see, it's not that you've been asking me from the beginning about my feelings regarding foriegn deaths. But, since you're left with no other option, you're going to pretend that you have.
Why are you equating a cross-border helicopter strike with a full-scale invasion?
And, yes, practically everyone is well aware that there's an Al Qeada in Iraq and a "Real" Al Qeada. Would you feel better if the targets were "real" Al Qeada?
Please enlighten me on how you would go about removing Saddam without mass bombings and a five year occupation?
Maybe 'full-scale invasion' was the wrong way to phrase it.
I'm continuing the thought line...you have no problem with them doing cross-border raids against a small number of terrorists. You reason that the innocent people in that area should move if they know the others in the area are supporting terrorists. So what if the majority of the country supports Al-Qaeda? What I'm getting at....Are you ok with attacking Al-Qaeda anywhere, if the civilian population supports Al-Qaeda?
I wouldn't feel any better if this was going after the 'real' Al-Qaeda, but at least it wouldn't matter that most people don't know the difference. As it is, I'm sure there are a fair number of people thinking they're going after OBL's cohorts....when in fact, they are going after the resistence in Iraq...a group that formed as a direct result of US actions (hmmm...maybe there isn't that much difference between the two after all).
oh, one of those retorts...like I'm supposed to know how to topple a world leader....how about you answer this: why exactly did the US want to topple Saddam? You seem to be goin with "dumb excuses for mass murder, v3.0 - regime change, and the freeing of the Iraqi people". Whatever makes it fucking stick, right? please.
It's not that I don't like to answer questions. It's that I don't answer loaded questions that are based on false pretenses.
Point in fact is that you still refuse to acknowledge the concept that Americans consider foreign and domestic deaths as having equal importance.
You see, it's not that you've been asking me from the beginning about my feelings regarding foriegn deaths. But, since you're left with no other option, you're going to pretend that you have.
I'm talking about the multiple other discussions you're having in this thread in which you won't answer questions.
As for premise that Americans consider foreign and domestic deaths the same, I think that's false because of one important distinction: The method of death delivery.
When the state kills innocents, it's a big deal. Think unlawful cop shootings or even beatings. Police brutality sparked a chain of events that ended with parts of L.A. burning. Cops represent the state and people are outraged when the kill innocents.
Now, when it happens in another part of the world and it's by U.S. soldiers, if the information does get out, plenty of Americans are like, 'Meh, they probably deserved it. Who can tell the difference between a terrorist and a civilian in that godforsaken place.'
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Maybe 'full-scale invasion' was the wrong way to phrase it.
I'm continuing the thought line...you have no problem with them doing cross-border raids against a small number of terrorists. You reason that the innocent people in that area should move if they know the others in the area are supporting terrorists. So what if the majority of the country supports Al-Qaeda? What I'm getting at....Are you ok with attacking Al-Qaeda anywhere, if the civilian population supports Al-Qaeda?
My point is that if cross border raids against terrorists were really unethical from the world's standpoint, then there wouldn't be such an effort to make it seem as though those raids are actually something else.
I wouldn't feel any better if this was going after the 'real' Al-Qaeda, but at least it wouldn't matter that most people don't know the difference. As it is, I'm sure there are a fair number of people thinking they're going after OBL's cohorts....when in fact, they are going after the resistence in Iraq...a group that formed as a direct result of US actions (hmmm...maybe there isn't that much difference between the two after all).
You're just thinking out loud right and not really making a point.
oh, one of those retorts...like I'm supposed to know how to topple a world leader....how about you answer this: why exactly did the US want to topple Saddam? You seem to be goin with "dumb excuses for mass murder, v3.0 - regime change, and the freeing of the Iraqi people". Whatever makes it fucking stick, right? please.
Again, this is more of you not really having a point.
First, you tried to bring up the Iraqi people because you thought you had a point to make about how US actions don't result in happy residents.
Of course, that point didn't carry much weight against the fact that the Iraqi people were more than happy to see Saddam toppled.
So, you went with the angle that the toppling of Saddam was achieved using immoral means, which was the means of mass bombings.
And by attempting to make that point, you make the assumption that the toppling of Saddam is even relevant.
And now that your argument about the immorality of mass bombings was sort of thrown back in your face because you couldn't suggest a practical alternative, you're trying to come across as though it's naive to consider the toppling of Saddam as having relavance.
But, as I mentioned, you are actually the one who acknowledged the relevance of Saddam's removal by even bringing up the reaction of the Iraqi people to that removal.
It's that kind of circular reasoning that is born out of not really thinking your views and ultimately your posts all the way through.
My point is that if cross border raids against terrorists were really unethical from the world's standpoint, then there wouldn't be such an effort to make it seem as though those raids are actually something else.
not just unethical-illegal. If the US disregards international law, doesn't that set a dangerous precedent for others to do so as well?
I'm talking about the multiple other discussions you're having in this thread in which you won't answer questions.
Of course, now you'll acknowledge that since you were called out on it. If I hadn't brought it up, you would've been all the more happy to let things go on as though I had been avoiding your questions, when in actuality I hadn't.
As for premise that Americans consider foreign and domestic deaths the same, I think that's false because of one important distinction: The method of death delivery.
When the state kills innocents, it's a big deal. Think unlawful cop shootings or even beatings. Police brutality sparked a chain of events that ended with parts of L.A. burning. Cops represent the state and people are outraged when the kill innocents.
Now, when it happens in another part of the world and it's by U.S. soldiers, if the information does get out, plenty of Americans are like, 'Meh, they probably deserved it. Who can tell the difference between a terrorist and a civilian in that godforsaken place.'
What you're forgetting is the LA riots were sparked by video depicting intentional brutality against an innocent person. Up until that video was released, there was no such public outcry on that grand of a scale.
That's a lot different from mere news reports. So far, there is no video depicting willful brutality in the middle east.
The only evidence that comes close is the photos from Abu Gharib, and a person would have to be naive to think that the whole country wasn't outraged by those photos. They were printed in the paper for weeks if not months, and countless tv news stories were aired repeatedly.
not just unethical-illegal. If the US disregards international law, doesn't that set a dangerous precedent for others to do so as well?
Apparently international is more of a suggestion when it comes to the U.S. Right now I'm reading about how the U.S. juked the U.N. in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Iranian military officials have warned against a unilateral strike on the Islamic Republic in the wake of a US raid against Syria.
On Sunday, four US helicopters attacked a civilian building in the Syrian village of Sukkariyah, eight kilometers from the Iraqi border, killing nine civilians and seriously wounding 14 others.
Deputy Army Commander Brigadier General Abdul-Rahim Mousavi told reporters on Tuesday that the time has come for the enemy to acknowledge Iran's defense capabilities.
"Recognition of Iran's naval mastery has traveled beyond the country's southern waters, and has reached the far ends of the Indian Ocean," said Brig. Gen. Mousavi.
The Iranian commander stressed that giant Western aircraft carriers and battleships do not intimidate world nations as they once did.
In a Tuesday statement, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps' (IRGC) naval commander, Admiral Morteza Saffari said that Iran's navy has been reorganized and is ready to defend the nation against all threats.
"Iran's naval forces will make sure that the enemy will live to regret any act of aggression against the Islamic Republic," said Admiral Saffari.
..."Recognition of Iran's naval mastery has traveled beyond the country's southern waters, and has reached the far ends of the Indian Ocean," said Brig. Gen. Mousavi...
I don't know why, but the phrase "Iran's naval mastery" made me giggle.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
My point is that if cross border raids against terrorists were really unethical from the world's standpoint, then there wouldn't be such an effort to make it seem as though those raids are actually something else.
Again, this is more of you not really having a point.
First, you tried to bring up the Iraqi people because you thought you had a point to make about how US actions don't result in happy residents.
Of course, that point didn't carry much weight against the fact that the Iraqi people were more than happy to see Saddam toppled.
So, you went with the angle that the toppling of Saddam was achieved using immoral means, which was the means of mass bombings.
And by attempting to make that point, you make the assumption that the toppling of Saddam is even relevant.
And now that your argument about the immorality of mass bombings was sort of thrown back in your face because you couldn't suggest a practical alternative, you're trying to come across as though it's naive to consider the toppling of Saddam as having relavance.
But, as I mentioned, you are actually the one who acknowledged the relevance of Saddam's removal by even bringing up the reaction of the Iraqi people to that removal.
It's that kind of circular reasoning that is born out of not really thinking your views and ultimately your posts all the way through.
I never brought up the relevance of Saddam being ousted, you did. You brought up the peoples’ reaction. “What you're forgetting is that when Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people were jumping for joy.”
you are attempting to paint the Iraq invasion as some kind of liberation from tyranny – the third reason given for the war. You did this after justifying raids into yet another country with excuse for mass-murder #2 – support for Al-Qaeda. How’s that Bush doctrine been workin for ya?
You also ignored the fact that Saddam has been removed from power for years, the Iraqi people want the US OUT, and instead they’ve set up permanent bases, with no plans for full withdrawl. So since you brought up the peoples’ reaction, and keep mentioning how happy they were to have the US remove the leader (and destroy their country then lend them the money to have US companies rebuild it)….what say you about their opinion now? Or does that opinion only matter when it supports your views?
Mass bombing IS immoral…and because I can’t come up with a practical alternative, it’s excusable? Talk about circular reasoning. Why did they have to flatten Baghdad to get to Saddam? Why did they bomb the infrastructure and the pipelines if they were just there to remove a tyrant?
Are you going to answer my question? Who would you consider the terrorists if you were Syrian? Don’t give me the line about it not being black and white again. You’re mixing up your Iraq/Syria argument by mentioning varying levels of support for their government….these raids had NOTHING to do with the Syrian government, or freeing the Syrian people from a brutal regime….its the US doing whatever they want, wherever they want, regardless of international law and opinion. If a foreign military chased some bad guys into the US and ended up killing 8 civilians, how would you react?
Comments
That's not true. If the US Government suddenly declared the Los Angeles Crips a terrorist organization, advised Los Angeles resident to either vacate or to cease assistance of the crips, most people in the US would not have any sort of problem with Compton being bombed to smithereens.
Whether or not you agree with that method of dealing with the Crips is irrelevant. My point is that it's not a matter of "foreigners are less important than we are."
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Nice way to put it. Easiest question of the day, too.
The question is really if I was a Syrian, and I considered my side to be terrorists, my own government would torture me by sticking a searing hot metal rod into my rectum.
What you're forgetting is that when Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people were jumping for joy.
So, this means that they saw their own government as the terrorists.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
OK, that's just a silly hypothetical question that has nothing to do with fighting a war in the Middle East and killing civilians in Syria.
I'm not saying they are treated as unwelcome invaders. People might be neutral, they might be afraid, they might think it's the best thing ever.
Al-Qaeda is fighting the US because of their presence in the Middle East. The US continues to kill innocent people and destroy infrastructure. I wonder how many will now, because of this, actively support al-Qaeda.
I said I would move too but it was you who mentioned moving away, so it was you who changed the circumstances of the scenario, remember?
So, please... just answer the question instead of avoiding it. The question was not what you'd do if you knew al-Qaeda lived near you. The question was and still is:
"you would be for the US landing helicopters and gunning the town up? Dropping some bombs? killing some kids?"
As I cleary and irrefutably pointed out, sponger, it was you who changed the question.
naděje umírá poslední
You mean you didn't know there's a congressional effort underway to declare major US street gangs as domestic terrorists? That there is a "war" being fought between US authorities and street gangs? That "innocent civilians" are often caught in the crossfire of this war? And that Americans generally feel that those deaths are acceptable given the severity of gang activity?
It's not a silly hypothetical scenario. It's a relavant hypothetical scenario that needed further explaining so that you could understand it.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
actually no, the real question was, "If you were Syrian, which side would you consider a terrorist?" nice attempt to dodge it with the graphic depiction of those savage Syrians, tho :rolleyes:
Pretty sure you just confirmed that the US is doing them a favour, just like they did the Iraqi's a favour...and the Afghani's....and the Iranians...and and and... I don't remember many Iraqi's cheering, aside from that staged statue toppling....and esp not over the last few years.
Hey, if there is a "congressional effort" to designate those gangs as terrorists, it's well hidden. The only reason the gov't would want to do that is to use Patriot Act investigatory tools against those gangs.
The U.S. gov't couldn't (and wouldn't) level L.A. because of gangs, but they will do that in foreign countries. It's not the same. It's a silly hypothetical.
The world isn't as simple as what country you live in. That is, it isn't a matter of "Are you a Syrian or aren't you?"
Within the country of Syria, there may very well exist varying levels of sentiment toward the Syrian government.
And, as I tried to illustrate this rather simple yet truthful point, you think I'm dodging the question? I know you are smarter than that.
So the Iraqis weren't happy to see Saddam toppled? You mean they didn't want him hanged after all?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I don't see why I should oblige you when you can't be honest.
YOU are the one who couldn't answer my question without creating the assumption that the residents either don't support Al Qeada or are unable to move.
So my point is that you couldn't answer my question without changing the circumstances. I'd like to move forward from this, but that requires your acknowledgement of the obvious.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Of course there is varying levels of support for their government. I'd like to see a poll asking them how much they support raids by a foreign power, on civilian villages. I'd also like to see the support figures for Al-Qaeda (even tho from what I read, this isn't about the 'real' Al-Qaeda, only Al-Qaeda in Iraq :rolleyes: ). If the majority of the country supports them, should we launch a full-scale invasion of Syria too?
And I'm sure there was varying levels of support for Saddam as well. I'm sure there were people cheering. I'm also sure the overwhelming majority of people in Iraq would have rather seen him ousted another way, ANY other way than mass bombings and a five year occupation. Take a look at the US support over there (coming from mostly US or west-based pollsters, of course)...even the people that are happy their country was levelled to get rid of Saddam have wanted the US out for YEARS.
That's beside the point. The point is that innocent people are killed in the crossfire between gangs and police practically every day. Yet, you don't see Americans up in arms about it.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Why are you equating a cross-border helicopter strike with a full-scale invasion?
And, yes, practically everyone is well aware that there's an Al Qeada in Iraq and a "Real" Al Qeada. Would you feel better if the targets were "real" Al Qeada?
Please enlighten me on how you would go about removing Saddam without mass bombings and a five year occupation?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
You want to start the anti-gang-violence thread and I'll be the first person to post on it.
You want to talk about why you believe the lives of innocents in Syria don't matter, here's your forum.
One common thread in both those issues is the fact that both groups are comprised of poor, brown people.
I did. I said I'd move too, but you mentioned moving away even though it was not part of the original question.
The question is: would you be ok with it if the US bombed your town and killed innocent people if some al-Qaeda was found to be living in your town?
You said: "I would move." Not an answer to the question at all.
Then you said "My point is that you would move too."
Good point, but you still didn't answer the question.
Furthermore, it is you who changed it:
"If the overwhelming majority of people in my neighborhood were supplying, sheltering, and acting as look-outs for Al Qeada, I would move to a different neighborhood."
That's not in the original question. You made that up. So you changed the circumstances of the original question.
"if some al qaeda was found living in whatever city/town you are in right now"
Notice the "some" and notice your "overwhelming majority".
Yes, I redirected the question back to its original. You said you'd move, not an answer, fine. By this I tried to take away the option of moving away.
If you hadn't introduced the totally irrelevant theme of moving in the first place, I would not have written this.
naděje umírá poslední
I said that Americans don't view the deaths of foreigners as being less important than domestic deaths.
Why do you insist on twisting that into something entirely different. Is it because you live in some weird fantasy world where everyone who doesn't live with their heads in the clouds must be blood-thirsty evil murderers?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
YOU. What do YOU believe? That's the question. It's not what you think Americans believe. It's about what YOU believe.
You don't like to answer questions, do you?
Actually, you have the sequence all wrong. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's unintentional on your part.
My first response to the question about bombs, which was posed by MrBrian, was the following:
Your first direct response to that statement other than a repetition of MrBrian's question, was the following:
Then I had to explain to you that I was not saying that the residents were Al Qeada.
Finally, you responded to my first statement with the following:
So, apparently, you do think it's important to know whether or not the residents support al qeada or can willfully move when discussing the subject of civilian casualties.
So, like I have been saying, those are parameters I had mentioned in my first post, and you couldn't directly respond to it without customizing those parameters to your preferences.
Again, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just got mixed up.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
It's not that I don't like to answer questions. It's that I don't answer loaded questions that are based on false pretenses.
Point in fact is that you still refuse to acknowledge the concept that Americans consider foreign and domestic deaths as having equal importance.
You see, it's not that you've been asking me from the beginning about my feelings regarding foriegn deaths. But, since you're left with no other option, you're going to pretend that you have.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Maybe 'full-scale invasion' was the wrong way to phrase it.
I'm continuing the thought line...you have no problem with them doing cross-border raids against a small number of terrorists. You reason that the innocent people in that area should move if they know the others in the area are supporting terrorists. So what if the majority of the country supports Al-Qaeda? What I'm getting at....Are you ok with attacking Al-Qaeda anywhere, if the civilian population supports Al-Qaeda?
I wouldn't feel any better if this was going after the 'real' Al-Qaeda, but at least it wouldn't matter that most people don't know the difference. As it is, I'm sure there are a fair number of people thinking they're going after OBL's cohorts....when in fact, they are going after the resistence in Iraq...a group that formed as a direct result of US actions (hmmm...maybe there isn't that much difference between the two after all).
oh, one of those retorts...like I'm supposed to know how to topple a world leader....how about you answer this: why exactly did the US want to topple Saddam? You seem to be goin with "dumb excuses for mass murder, v3.0 - regime change, and the freeing of the Iraqi people". Whatever makes it fucking stick, right? please.
I'm talking about the multiple other discussions you're having in this thread in which you won't answer questions.
As for premise that Americans consider foreign and domestic deaths the same, I think that's false because of one important distinction: The method of death delivery.
When the state kills innocents, it's a big deal. Think unlawful cop shootings or even beatings. Police brutality sparked a chain of events that ended with parts of L.A. burning. Cops represent the state and people are outraged when the kill innocents.
Now, when it happens in another part of the world and it's by U.S. soldiers, if the information does get out, plenty of Americans are like, 'Meh, they probably deserved it. Who can tell the difference between a terrorist and a civilian in that godforsaken place.'
My point is that if cross border raids against terrorists were really unethical from the world's standpoint, then there wouldn't be such an effort to make it seem as though those raids are actually something else.
You're just thinking out loud right and not really making a point.
Again, this is more of you not really having a point.
First, you tried to bring up the Iraqi people because you thought you had a point to make about how US actions don't result in happy residents.
Of course, that point didn't carry much weight against the fact that the Iraqi people were more than happy to see Saddam toppled.
So, you went with the angle that the toppling of Saddam was achieved using immoral means, which was the means of mass bombings.
And by attempting to make that point, you make the assumption that the toppling of Saddam is even relevant.
And now that your argument about the immorality of mass bombings was sort of thrown back in your face because you couldn't suggest a practical alternative, you're trying to come across as though it's naive to consider the toppling of Saddam as having relavance.
But, as I mentioned, you are actually the one who acknowledged the relevance of Saddam's removal by even bringing up the reaction of the Iraqi people to that removal.
It's that kind of circular reasoning that is born out of not really thinking your views and ultimately your posts all the way through.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Of course, now you'll acknowledge that since you were called out on it. If I hadn't brought it up, you would've been all the more happy to let things go on as though I had been avoiding your questions, when in actuality I hadn't.
What you're forgetting is the LA riots were sparked by video depicting intentional brutality against an innocent person. Up until that video was released, there was no such public outcry on that grand of a scale.
That's a lot different from mere news reports. So far, there is no video depicting willful brutality in the middle east.
The only evidence that comes close is the photos from Abu Gharib, and a person would have to be naive to think that the whole country wasn't outraged by those photos. They were printed in the paper for weeks if not months, and countless tv news stories were aired repeatedly.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Again...that's my point...if it really comes down to just that, then there wouldn't be such an effort to take it one step further.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Apparently international is more of a suggestion when it comes to the U.S. Right now I'm reading about how the U.S. juked the U.N. in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack.
Iranian military officials have warned against a unilateral strike on the Islamic Republic in the wake of a US raid against Syria.
On Sunday, four US helicopters attacked a civilian building in the Syrian village of Sukkariyah, eight kilometers from the Iraqi border, killing nine civilians and seriously wounding 14 others.
Deputy Army Commander Brigadier General Abdul-Rahim Mousavi told reporters on Tuesday that the time has come for the enemy to acknowledge Iran's defense capabilities.
"Recognition of Iran's naval mastery has traveled beyond the country's southern waters, and has reached the far ends of the Indian Ocean," said Brig. Gen. Mousavi.
The Iranian commander stressed that giant Western aircraft carriers and battleships do not intimidate world nations as they once did.
In a Tuesday statement, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps' (IRGC) naval commander, Admiral Morteza Saffari said that Iran's navy has been reorganized and is ready to defend the nation against all threats.
"Iran's naval forces will make sure that the enemy will live to regret any act of aggression against the Islamic Republic," said Admiral Saffari.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=73546§ionid=351020101
I don't know why, but the phrase "Iran's naval mastery" made me giggle.
pretty much, ya.
I never brought up the relevance of Saddam being ousted, you did. You brought up the peoples’ reaction. “What you're forgetting is that when Saddam was toppled, the Iraqi people were jumping for joy.”
you are attempting to paint the Iraq invasion as some kind of liberation from tyranny – the third reason given for the war. You did this after justifying raids into yet another country with excuse for mass-murder #2 – support for Al-Qaeda. How’s that Bush doctrine been workin for ya?
You also ignored the fact that Saddam has been removed from power for years, the Iraqi people want the US OUT, and instead they’ve set up permanent bases, with no plans for full withdrawl. So since you brought up the peoples’ reaction, and keep mentioning how happy they were to have the US remove the leader (and destroy their country then lend them the money to have US companies rebuild it)….what say you about their opinion now? Or does that opinion only matter when it supports your views?
Mass bombing IS immoral…and because I can’t come up with a practical alternative, it’s excusable? Talk about circular reasoning. Why did they have to flatten Baghdad to get to Saddam? Why did they bomb the infrastructure and the pipelines if they were just there to remove a tyrant?
Are you going to answer my question? Who would you consider the terrorists if you were Syrian? Don’t give me the line about it not being black and white again. You’re mixing up your Iraq/Syria argument by mentioning varying levels of support for their government….these raids had NOTHING to do with the Syrian government, or freeing the Syrian people from a brutal regime….its the US doing whatever they want, wherever they want, regardless of international law and opinion. If a foreign military chased some bad guys into the US and ended up killing 8 civilians, how would you react?