Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Uche Americanus
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:25 pm

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Uche Americanus »

Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Uche Americanus wrote:
. . You have a tendency to get angry at people who disagree with you and in the process forget that people have a right to free expression. My attempt was to discover if such demonic behavior occured? We saw similar behavior with the CBS news reporter, Logan and again with Gadahfi where he was sodomized with a wooden utensil. This seems to be the modus operandi of the Islamists and terrorists. Rape and sodomize their opponents as a way of demoralizing them. . .

Have you read Kite Runner, Uche? Sodomy is integral to the story.

As for free expression, get used to it. There are some so inflated with their own opinions that any opinion to the contrary is lies, error, racism, yadda, yadda, yadda, ad nauseam. Check the "Ignore" function.

As Hans put it, the problem is not Islam, the problem is individual Muslims . .

Glad Marcus is contributing to the thread in this useful manner.

The fact remains that there is no evidence supporting Uche's claims.Ibrahim

True, Ibrahim. I agree that there is no incontrovertible official evidence supporting my claim but that does not mean there won't be any in a few months or so. Presently, the State Department is busy trying to diffuse the tragedy of Ambasssador's Steven's death that they are not likely to release any evidence that will further polarize an already tense situation. But let us give it some time and the truth will come out.

Please keep in mind that I have nothing against Muslims but I'm very opposed to the terrorists who live amongst them.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Parodite »

Hans Bulvai wrote:A government's first priority is to ensure the safety and well being of their people.
Sure.
They calculated that this movie is not worth the trouble. They see no danger to their 'freedom' by choosing not to insult millions of people.


That's right. The danger that arises comes not from people who are insulted (to be insulted is a right everyone has) if that were the only thing, but from those among the insulted who think they should get physical with those who caused them to be offended or even worse, get physical with people who didn't make that movie but live in the same country as the offenders. They become blinded with rage. Those are the danger here: not a government who decides to curtail freedom of expression in a specific case. That only makes millions potentially disappointed in such a government that caves in to violent blackmail.

Some people define freedom differently than others. That is civil to me and deserves respect.
I think you mix the issues that play out here. It is uncivil to physically threaten people, let alone kill them, let alone kill people not involved directly but only working in an embassy of the same country. It is blind, criminal, vulgar rage of the very lowest sort. A sort one should never cave into in my opinion; it makes you, as a government, complicit in allowing violent blackmail to hijack a fundamental right we have here that was fought for big time. There is no discussion here for me. Those violent arses deserve no respect whatsoever, should be brought before court and made to shut up.

Remains the question, which is what you probably refer to, if it is a good thing if a government restricts freedom of speech and expression in general regarding various sensitivities within and among communities. If Jews feel insulted and hurt when in Germany Mein Kampf would be freely available it can be taken into account, as depicting Muhammad in a cartoon can be equally offensive and hurtful which should be taken into account then as well... to be fair. And there are ofcourse more groups that can be offended and hurt by the behavior of others. In Switzerland people did not like high mosques... offensive to their Christian soul and sensitivities, their dislike of immigrant Islamic cultural elements most probably.

My question to you is: how you going to arrange the law re. all those groups of people who may all feel offended for different reasons and by different behaviors of others... but who have one thing in common: the hurt and pain that can be equally intensive? How you measure the level of hurt? Should those who shout loudest and make the most threats get the most protection? I guess that can't be the case in a fair democracy and it is also very unwise because it becomes a precedent: the louder you shout and the more violent the threats... the more legal protection you get. That will get you into an arms race of laws to protect you from being mentally hurt by others. Which will feed right into the likes of Geert Wilders who can then claim that Muslims get away with violence or intimidation; it fuels polarization and tension between groups that are in the process of offending and hurting each other.
By the way, what do you think about them banning the Florida preacher from visiting?
I myself am against prohibiting any verbal or other expression, as long as it does not explicitly and intentionally incite to physical violence. If that preacher wants to come and express his whatever opinion and it does not incite/invite explicitly to physical violence but that will no doubt hurt the feelings of many Muslims.. he should be allowed to visit Germany nonetheless.

There is only one "sin" that IMHO comes close to the offense of explicitly inciting to physical violence; the explicit and expressed desire to curtail free speech and wanting to change our modern church-state separated democracies into a totalitarian dictatorship. That can be fundamentalist Muslims with a political agenda who love to see people hanged for a cartoon, but of course there are more groups who think along those lines. The real Breiviks etc. ;)
Would you apply the same standards to Western govt. officials who offer bounties, by the million, on the heads of suspected terrorists who don't even get a trial when they are blown to bits?
Sure. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a professional court. It is sad and a shame to see the West moving off the righteous path in many instances during its "war on terror".
Besides, the government of Pakistan distanced itself from that guy.
Yes. Read that too, good news.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Ibrahim »

Parodite wrote:It is uncivil to physically threaten people, let alone kill them, let alone kill people not involved directly but only working in an embassy of the same country. It is blind, criminal, vulgar rage of the very lowest sort.
In Libya it was a planned terrorist attack by a terrorist organization with an agenda to disrupt post-revolutionary Libya democracy. It's not "blind rage," though it may be criminal.

But, in principle, is there something Satanic about attacking American diplomatic posts, if you belong to a group of people the US has declared it is at war with and will kill anywhere, any way it can, and does, though often killing many more civilians than actual terrorists? It seems like business as usual for all concerned.

This goes back to my tiresome point that nobody has really addressed so far. The US kills people all the time using the exact same methods as terrorists, they just deliver their bombs that mangle actual targets and civilians indiscriminately using different methods. So we can probably dispense with the fiction that there is some kind of civilized faction to contrast with a barbaric faction behaving unspeakably.
User avatar
Hans Bulvai
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: Underneath everything

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Hans Bulvai »

Ibrahim wrote:
Parodite wrote:It is uncivil to physically threaten people, let alone kill them, let alone kill people not involved directly but only working in an embassy of the same country. It is blind, criminal, vulgar rage of the very lowest sort.
In Libya it was a planned terrorist attack by a terrorist organization with an agenda to disrupt post-revolutionary Libya democracy. It's not "blind rage," though it may be criminal.

But, in principle, is there something Satanic about attacking American diplomatic posts, if you belong to a group of people the US has declared it is at war with and will kill anywhere, any way it can, and does, though often killing many more civilians than actual terrorists? It seems like business as usual for all concerned.

This goes back to my tiresome point that nobody has really addressed so far. The US kills people all the time using the exact same methods as terrorists, they just deliver their bombs that mangle actual targets and civilians indiscriminately using different methods. So we can probably dispense with the fiction that there is some kind of civilized faction to contrast with a barbaric faction behaving unspeakably.
Raphsody and I argued this point some time ago. His argument was that those delivering the high tech bombs have no "intention" of killing civilians regardless whether they know that a 2000 lbs bomb being dropped on a residential area does just that. He never would answer my question of whether the pilot dropping that bomb knew where the bomb was being dropped and what it would do... :?
I don't buy supremacy
Media chief
You menace me
The people you say
'Cause all the crime
Wake up motherfucker
And smell the slime
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Parodite »

Hans Bulvai wrote:Raphsody and I argued this point some time ago. His argument was that those delivering the high tech bombs have no "intention" of killing civilians regardless whether they know that a 2000 lbs bomb being dropped on a residential area does just that. He never would answer my question of whether the pilot dropping that bomb knew where the bomb was being dropped and what it would do... :?
Maybe I didn't, I'll try now then. If you want to free say a family that is taken hostage by a madman that wired the entire building, your intentions are good. You want to help. If however after careful study it turns out that he only way to free that family is dropping a 2000 lbs bomb or some other set of actions that would kill many other civilians as a result.... you are an durian, to put it very mildly, if you'd proceed nevertheless. This is rather obvious isn't it. This of course could be used in the same way where you and I seemed to agree on: the price of the uprising against Assad might be too high. Not at every price will the dickator be removed.

Usually the equation is less simple. If a pilot is told by his superiors to drop a bomb that will destroy a factory but also probably kill a lot of civilians... but that this price must be payed because otherwise bombs made in that factory will kill many more civilians somewhere else and the pilot is convinced that this is true... he will still drop the bomb. Maybe he feels great and heroic afterwards, maybe he feels very little at all, maybe he cries all night afterwards, or years later... when he realised he was naive and misinformed by his superiors and what his bomb did to families in that neighborhood. Don't think you can generalise that easily about how pilots feel before during and afterwards. Who and what do we know? Maybe people start to like killing others after a while. Fear, blood lust, indifference and apathy.

And of course we are all selfish in the same way: it is not okay to kill 100 of my own people in order to save 5 of my own (would make no sense...) But it is usually very ok to kill 100 of your people in order to save 5 of my own "ïf I have to".
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:. . Usually the equation is less simple. If a pilot is told by his superiors to drop a bomb that will destroy a factory but also probably kill a lot of civilians... but that this price must be payed because otherwise bombs made in that factory will kill many more civilians somewhere else and the pilot is convinced that this is true... he will still drop the bomb. Maybe he feels great and heroic afterwards, maybe he feels very little at all, maybe he cries all night afterwards, or years later... when he realised he was naive and misinformed by his superiors and what his bomb did to families in that neighborhood. Don't think you can generalise that easily about how pilots feel before during and afterwards. Who and what do we know? Maybe people start to like killing others after a while. Fear, blood lust, indifference and apathy.

And of course we are all selfish in the same way: it is not okay to kill 100 of my own people in order to save 5 of my own (would make no sense...) But it is usually very ok to kill 100 of your people in order to save 5 of my own "ïf I have to".
unknown.jpg
unknown.jpg (37.66 KiB) Viewed 1416 times
Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?"

The Marine replied....."Recoil."
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Ibrahim »

Marcus wrote:Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?"

The Marine replied....."Recoil."

This reminds me of a story I was just reading about US troops in Iraq shooting up civilian cars and planting confiscated AKs in them to justify the shoot. They took turns so that everyone on the unit could get a "combat kill."

The one member of the unit who didn't want to participate was harassed into requesting a transfer. The details of the story were in the form of recorded transcripts of his phonecalls home to his family, they are now trying to press some sort of legal action against the government.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Sounds Like Drug Confiscation Laws on Steriods.......

Post by monster_gardener »

Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?"

The Marine replied....."Recoil."

This reminds me of a story I was just reading about US troops in Iraq shooting up civilian cars and planting confiscated AKs in them to justify the shoot. They took turns so that everyone on the unit could get a "combat kill."

The one member of the unit who didn't want to participate was harassed into requesting a transfer. The details of the story were in the form of recorded transcripts of his phonecalls home to his family, they are now trying to press some sort of legal action against the government.
Thank you Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.

Think I have heard this before but do you have the link.........

If true, the soldiers should be court-martialed.......

Mistakes are going to happen in war but this is unjustifiable........

Reminds me of my concerns about drug confiscation laws here in Uz.

Enables police to plant drugs and confiscate property without a trial......

Count our blessings........ Lost property rather than lost lives........ but it galls..........
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Jnalum Persicum

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Jnalum Persicum »

Ibrahim wrote:.
Marcus wrote:.

Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?"

The Marine replied....."Recoil."

.

This reminds me of a story I was just reading about US troops in Iraq shooting up civilian cars and planting confiscated AKs in them to justify the shoot. They took turns so that everyone on the unit could get a "combat kill."

The one member of the unit who didn't want to participate was harassed into requesting a transfer. The details of the story were in the form of recorded transcripts of his phonecalls home to his family, they are now trying to press some sort of legal action against the government.

.


Think this way, Ibrahim , Monster

If you are attacked in your country or home, it is human nature to take arm and defend one's home, family and country .. any decent human beings would do that

but

what kind of human being would take arms and go 10,000 miles away and shoot people he has never met, spoken or related to ? ? ? .. decent human beings do not do such things

Now that it is clear that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, let alone neither Iraqi or Afghani population had anything to do with 9/11 (an inside Job), what kind of human being would go to Iraq and Afghanistan and kill all those woman and children ? ? ? for what ? ? ?

@ least 500,000, reality is 1,000,000 Iraqi children murdered by west and a Jewish woman says it was justified

Well .. That should tell you something

It took 1000+ yrs for Roman empire to fall .. American empire not lasting even 100 yrs


monster_gardener wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Marcus wrote:Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked: "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?"

The Marine replied....."Recoil."

This reminds me of a story I was just reading about US troops in Iraq shooting up civilian cars and planting confiscated AKs in them to justify the shoot. They took turns so that everyone on the unit could get a "combat kill."

The one member of the unit who didn't want to participate was harassed into requesting a transfer. The details of the story were in the form of recorded transcripts of his phonecalls home to his family, they are now trying to press some sort of legal action against the government.
Thank you Very Much for your post, Ibrahim.

Think I have heard this before but do you have the link.........

If true, the soldiers should be court-martialed.......

Mistakes are going to happen in war but this is unjustifiable........

Reminds me of my concerns about drug confiscation laws here in Uz.

Enables police to plant drugs and confiscate property without a trial......

Count our blessings........ Lost property rather than lost lives........ but it galls..........


Come on , Monster

you saw that report American soldiers were throwing candy from Humvee and when children running behind the car to pick the candy they were shot by soldiers, like shooting ducks

you do not need links for that .. was in all papers


AND, Monster

what happened to all those soldiers, doing all those things, starting in AbuGhoreib and later cutting finger and ears as trophy and shooting candy picking children ? ? ? .. not much

well, if American secretary of State says murdering 500,000 Iraqi children was justified, what would one expect from a soldiers just shooting a few kids ? ? ? ?



.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Parodite »

Jnalum Persicum wrote:Now that it is clear that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, let alone neither Iraqi or Afghani population had anything to do with 9/11 (an inside Job)
Maybe you should just try live more with facts instead of floating around on a carpet talking to yourself. Strange things happened at 9/11 but there is no beyond reasonable doubt proof established by an independent investigation of what exactly happened, if there is missing information; just conspiracy theories plenty.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Parodite »

So lets see what your initial claim was:
Azari wrote: Now, pretty much, 80% of Europeans , 80% of world population .. and .. more than 1 in 2 American say 9/11 was an inside job.
Then you come up with a source to back it up:
A simple "google" .. "Opinion polls about 9/11" . . Only 46% Americans believe Al-Qaida did it
Now your own source kills you already. You claimed that "80% of Europeans , 80% of world population" say it was an inside US govt job. Your source however gives an enirely different number per country:

Image

In the US, your source reports:

"Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the United States government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."

Poor Azari. You have nobody on your side. Not even Egyptians, Jordanians or Palestinians. :D
Deep down I'm very superficial
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Hans Bulvai wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Parodite wrote:It is uncivil to physically threaten people, let alone kill them, let alone kill people not involved directly but only working in an embassy of the same country. It is blind, criminal, vulgar rage of the very lowest sort.
In Libya it was a planned terrorist attack by a terrorist organization with an agenda to disrupt post-revolutionary Libya democracy. It's not "blind rage," though it may be criminal.

But, in principle, is there something Satanic about attacking American diplomatic posts, if you belong to a group of people the US has declared it is at war with and will kill anywhere, any way it can, and does, though often killing many more civilians than actual terrorists? It seems like business as usual for all concerned.

This goes back to my tiresome point that nobody has really addressed so far. The US kills people all the time using the exact same methods as terrorists, they just deliver their bombs that mangle actual targets and civilians indiscriminately using different methods. So we can probably dispense with the fiction that there is some kind of civilized faction to contrast with a barbaric faction behaving unspeakably.
Raphsody and I argued this point some time ago. His argument was that those delivering the high tech bombs have no "intention" of killing civilians regardless whether they know that a 2000 lbs bomb being dropped on a residential area does just that. He never would answer my question of whether the pilot dropping that bomb knew where the bomb was being dropped and what it would do... :?
Pilots don't choose their targets they are given to them. They fly their missions report their achieving target destination and then drop their ordinance. There is no judgment to be made on what they bomb because they don't choose what to bomb or not bomb they just follow flight plans. It's a no risk proposition for a pilot. Now close air support is a different subject and they do chose who to shoot at and who not to shoot at. They pick an area that is being called in as hostile and then perform an assessment that still requires an order to allow them to engage a target but they have a lot more say in who gets shot and who doesn't. The drone guys get about the same sterilized information as the pilot who drops bombs. The guy that flies the recon flight doesn't analyze his own data someone else does. That guy writes a report and usually takes all of the known data that they have from local sources and makes it all fit together. Then they write an action report and someone draws up a flight with approved strikes and non approved strikes. The target strike flight pilot only hits his target, he is not told what it was or who it is only where it is. He is never told if the flight kills civilians just that a target was hit with success or failure.
Been busy doing stuff
Jnalum Persicum

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Jnalum Persicum »

Hoosiernorm wrote:.

Pilots don't choose their targets they are given to them. They fly their missions report their achieving target destination and then drop their ordinance. There is no judgment to be made on what they bomb because they don't choose what to bomb or not bomb they just follow flight plans. It's a no risk proposition for a pilot. Now close air support is a different subject and they do chose who to shoot at and who not to shoot at. They pick an area that is being called in as hostile and then perform an assessment that still requires an order to allow them to engage a target but they have a lot more say in who gets shot and who doesn't. The drone guys get about the same sterilized information as the pilot who drops bombs. The guy that flies the recon flight doesn't analyze his own data someone else does. That guy writes a report and usually takes all of the known data that they have from local sources and makes it all fit together. Then they write an action report and someone draws up a flight with approved strikes and non approved strikes. The target strike flight pilot only hits his target, he is not told what it was or who it is only where it is. He is never told if the flight kills civilians just that a target was hit with success or failure.

.

Interesting to know what "Hague War Crime Court" position is on that

Does a pilot has to follow a mission like it is a pilot-less drown or a robot ? ? ?

Just get a mission and fulfill it

If so, anybody could say this was a mission, whether a pilot or infantry man shooting into a Civilian building or village

A pilot could be asked to bomb a school with children on pretext a terrorist is hiding there .. is said, W. Bush had authorized to allow free hand to fire even if "up to" 35 civilian dead for each terrorist (a clear war crime) .. matter of fact, this a WiKi definition of terrorist, killing indiscriminate civilian for military purpose

Seems, there is a law, even American military has to obey, saying immoral orders must be disobeyed .. meaning military personnel must make moral and ethical judgment for any order they get

That was established in "Nuremberg war crime court" .. soldiers must disobey immoral orders

A B-2 pilot carpet bombing, killing indiscriminately civilians, must disobey the order .. otherwise he could be accused as "war criminal" in a "Nuremberg style war crime court"

America now controlling who is and is not prosecuted in "Hague war crime court" .. Madeleine Albright , Kissinger and even W. Bush and and and should be "War Crime Court" long ago .. but America preventing it

but

this will not stay that way forever .. and .. history will judge


.
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by YMix »

A B-2 pilot carpet bombing, killing indiscriminately civilians, must disobey the order .. otherwise he could be accused as "war criminal" in a "Nuremberg style war crime court"
Only if you lose.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: How to respond to violent mobs who don't like a movie?

Post by Ibrahim »

Hoosiernorm wrote:
Hans Bulvai wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Parodite wrote:It is uncivil to physically threaten people, let alone kill them, let alone kill people not involved directly but only working in an embassy of the same country. It is blind, criminal, vulgar rage of the very lowest sort.
In Libya it was a planned terrorist attack by a terrorist organization with an agenda to disrupt post-revolutionary Libya democracy. It's not "blind rage," though it may be criminal.

But, in principle, is there something Satanic about attacking American diplomatic posts, if you belong to a group of people the US has declared it is at war with and will kill anywhere, any way it can, and does, though often killing many more civilians than actual terrorists? It seems like business as usual for all concerned.

This goes back to my tiresome point that nobody has really addressed so far. The US kills people all the time using the exact same methods as terrorists, they just deliver their bombs that mangle actual targets and civilians indiscriminately using different methods. So we can probably dispense with the fiction that there is some kind of civilized faction to contrast with a barbaric faction behaving unspeakably.
Raphsody and I argued this point some time ago. His argument was that those delivering the high tech bombs have no "intention" of killing civilians regardless whether they know that a 2000 lbs bomb being dropped on a residential area does just that. He never would answer my question of whether the pilot dropping that bomb knew where the bomb was being dropped and what it would do... :?
Pilots don't choose their targets they are given to them. They fly their missions report their achieving target destination and then drop their ordinance. There is no judgment to be made on what they bomb because they don't choose what to bomb or not bomb they just follow flight plans. It's a no risk proposition for a pilot. Now close air support is a different subject and they do chose who to shoot at and who not to shoot at. They pick an area that is being called in as hostile and then perform an assessment that still requires an order to allow them to engage a target but they have a lot more say in who gets shot and who doesn't. The drone guys get about the same sterilized information as the pilot who drops bombs. The guy that flies the recon flight doesn't analyze his own data someone else does. That guy writes a report and usually takes all of the known data that they have from local sources and makes it all fit together. Then they write an action report and someone draws up a flight with approved strikes and non approved strikes. The target strike flight pilot only hits his target, he is not told what it was or who it is only where it is. He is never told if the flight kills civilians just that a target was hit with success or failure.
He still culpable. Essentially this is the "just following orders" defense, which is actually compelling in the sense that in a military setting nobody asks you for your opinion on something, they just tell you to do it. Still, if you are a cog in a machine that is doing X then you are also responsible for X. Drone operators are murderers, plain and simple, even if every military procedure and technological advancement is designed to insulate them from their actions. But not just the operator, all the people involved in the machine at all levels share responsibility, from the guy who sweeps up the hangar to the President. So it was determined at Nuremberg, and how much more so is it true in a country with a volunteer military, where nobody is going to execute you for refusing to fire missiles at children in Yemen?

Now, perhaps you really only meant to say that these military personnel don't know what they are doing. Well, IMO half of them don't care and the other half don't want to know. Regardless, my argument is that if you are shooting missiles at people you had better make it your business to know.
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Hoosiernorm »

When you are given coordinates for a fire mission you hit your grid as accurately as possible. The drone guys get a building or a house in a specific place. They do not know the occupants of the house or how many or if anyone is there. They just fly missions, it is as plain as that. No one worried too much about the building it's just a building or a house or a complex, it's just stuff they are making strikes on. They fly a strike and go back home to watch the kids play soccer or watch TV, life is not complicated for drone pilots.
Been busy doing stuff
Jnalum Persicum

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Jnalum Persicum »

Hoosiernorm wrote:.

When you are given coordinates for a fire mission you hit your grid as accurately as possible. The drone guys get a building or a house in a specific place. They do not know the occupants of the house or how many or if anyone is there. They just fly missions, it is as plain as that. No one worried too much about the building it's just a building or a house or a complex, it's just stuff they are making strikes on. They fly a strike and go back home to watch the kids play soccer or watch TV, life is not complicated for drone pilots.

.

If a drone hits a school and 100s of children die .. who is the "war criminal" ? ?

The school is marked .. number of children going to that school is known .. and it is Monday morning 10 AM local time, a school day

The pilot or the drone operator gets the coordinates and drops a bomb on that school killing 500 children

who is the war criminal ? ? ?

If nobody, that would be news to "Hague war criminal court" .. and .. would open door to all kind of new warfare .. namely, terrorizing the civilian population as a mean of warning opponent .. that is exactly what America doing with drone attacks in Vaziristan .. UN report says drone attacks have zero effect on insurgency and pretty much all victims are civilians .. America knows this but uses drone attack intentionally to kill civilian to threaten local people, weddings and all kind of gathering are intentionally bombed killing woman and children


BBC - Civilians are being "terrorised" 24 hours a day by CIA drone attacks

All these are "War Crimes"

The tragedy of all this is that it lowers the bar .. the other side could start doing the same


.
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Jnalum Persicum wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:.

When you are given coordinates for a fire mission you hit your grid as accurately as possible. The drone guys get a building or a house in a specific place. They do not know the occupants of the house or how many or if anyone is there. They just fly missions, it is as plain as that. No one worried too much about the building it's just a building or a house or a complex, it's just stuff they are making strikes on. They fly a strike and go back home to watch the kids play soccer or watch TV, life is not complicated for drone pilots.

.

If
You are talking about "if's" why not make it a million children killed or a billion children killed. I can't take an argument seriously if all you are going to do is argue based on "If". Besides, I don't know how the CIA determines it's targets or how their chain of command works for strikes.
Been busy doing stuff
Jnalum Persicum

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Jnalum Persicum »

Hoosiernorm wrote:
Jnalum Persicum wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:.

When you are given coordinates for a fire mission you hit your grid as accurately as possible. The drone guys get a building or a house in a specific place. They do not know the occupants of the house or how many or if anyone is there. They just fly missions, it is as plain as that. No one worried too much about the building it's just a building or a house or a complex, it's just stuff they are making strikes on. They fly a strike and go back home to watch the kids play soccer or watch TV, life is not complicated for drone pilots.

.
If

.
You are talking about "if's" why not make it a million children killed or a billion children killed. I can't take an argument seriously if all you are going to do is argue based on "If". Besides, I don't know how the CIA determines it's targets or how their chain of command works for strikes.

.

Schools and many weddings and funerals have been bombed, with devastating civilian causalities


.
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Jnalum Persicum wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:
Jnalum Persicum wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:.

When you are given coordinates for a fire mission you hit your grid as accurately as possible. The drone guys get a building or a house in a specific place. They do not know the occupants of the house or how many or if anyone is there. They just fly missions, it is as plain as that. No one worried too much about the building it's just a building or a house or a complex, it's just stuff they are making strikes on. They fly a strike and go back home to watch the kids play soccer or watch TV, life is not complicated for drone pilots.

.
If

.
You are talking about "if's" why not make it a million children killed or a billion children killed. I can't take an argument seriously if all you are going to do is argue based on "If". Besides, I don't know how the CIA determines it's targets or how their chain of command works for strikes.

.

Schools and many weddings and funerals have been bombed, with devastating civilian causalities


.

If arresting these targets were possible it would be a lot easier. Problem is that the Afghanistan military and government are too weak to maintain control over these areas. Targeted strikes aren't perfect and most of the civilian casualties are killed in follow up strikes when they are trying to put out fires or rescue the dead. The first responders are killed at a 10 to 1 ratio vs the actual targets. It's not a perfect solution but for right now it seems to be the most popular. It also gives the local government more support than it ever has. Just go to the television camera and tell everyone that those evil Americans have violated the human rights that they hold so dear. It's a win win for everyone except the locals, no one cares much for them and until the government can garrison a village to "protect" it and keep the anti government sorts out of it for the sake of the locals then the strikes will continue.
Been busy doing stuff
User avatar
Enki
Posts: 5052
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:04 pm

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Enki »

Hoosiernorm wrote:When you are given coordinates for a fire mission you hit your grid as accurately as possible. The drone guys get a building or a house in a specific place. They do not know the occupants of the house or how many or if anyone is there. They just fly missions, it is as plain as that. No one worried too much about the building it's just a building or a house or a complex, it's just stuff they are making strikes on. They fly a strike and go back home to watch the kids play soccer or watch TV, life is not complicated for drone pilots.
And this is precisely why it is one of the most hideous evils in all of history.

And the drone pilots certainly know what they are doing. They are aware of the consequences of their actions. My cousin fired Tomahawks, he was aware of what was happening.
Men often oppose a thing merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike.
-Alexander Hamilton
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

Western Taxpayers vs. Muslim Taxpayers

Post by monster_gardener »

Ibrahim wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:
Hans Bulvai wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Parodite wrote:It is uncivil to physically threaten people, let alone kill them, let alone kill people not involved directly but only working in an embassy of the same country. It is blind, criminal, vulgar rage of the very lowest sort.
In Libya it was a planned terrorist attack by a terrorist organization with an agenda to disrupt post-revolutionary Libya democracy. It's not "blind rage," though it may be criminal.

But, in principle, is there something Satanic about attacking American diplomatic posts, if you belong to a group of people the US has declared it is at war with and will kill anywhere, any way it can, and does, though often killing many more civilians than actual terrorists? It seems like business as usual for all concerned.

This goes back to my tiresome point that nobody has really addressed so far. The US kills people all the time using the exact same methods as terrorists, they just deliver their bombs that mangle actual targets and civilians indiscriminately using different methods. So we can probably dispense with the fiction that there is some kind of civilized faction to contrast with a barbaric faction behaving unspeakably.
Raphsody and I argued this point some time ago. His argument was that those delivering the high tech bombs have no "intention" of killing civilians regardless whether they know that a 2000 lbs bomb being dropped on a residential area does just that. He never would answer my question of whether the pilot dropping that bomb knew where the bomb was being dropped and what it would do... :?
Pilots don't choose their targets they are given to them. They fly their missions report their achieving target destination and then drop their ordinance. There is no judgment to be made on what they bomb because they don't choose what to bomb or not bomb they just follow flight plans. It's a no risk proposition for a pilot. Now close air support is a different subject and they do chose who to shoot at and who not to shoot at. They pick an area that is being called in as hostile and then perform an assessment that still requires an order to allow them to engage a target but they have a lot more say in who gets shot and who doesn't. The drone guys get about the same sterilized information as the pilot who drops bombs. The guy that flies the recon flight doesn't analyze his own data someone else does. That guy writes a report and usually takes all of the known data that they have from local sources and makes it all fit together. Then they write an action report and someone draws up a flight with approved strikes and non approved strikes. The target strike flight pilot only hits his target, he is not told what it was or who it is only where it is. He is never told if the flight kills civilians just that a target was hit with success or failure.
He still culpable. Essentially this is the "just following orders" defense, which is actually compelling in the sense that in a military setting nobody asks you for your opinion on something, they just tell you to do it. Still, if you are a cog in a machine that is doing X then you are also responsible for X. Drone operators are murderers, plain and simple, even if every military procedure and technological advancement is designed to insulate them from their actions. But not just the operator, all the people involved in the machine at all levels share responsibility, from the guy who sweeps up the hangar to the President. So it was determined at Nuremberg, and how much more so is it true in a country with a volunteer military, where nobody is going to execute you for refusing to fire missiles at children in Yemen?

Now, perhaps you really only meant to say that these military personnel don't know what they are doing. Well, IMO half of them don't care and the other half don't want to know. Regardless, my argument is that if you are shooting missiles at people you had better make it your business to know.
Thank You VERY Much for your Post, Ibrahim.

You may have some points...........
But not just the operator, all the people involved in the machine at all levels share responsibility, from the guy who sweeps up the hangar to the President.
Let's kick it up a notch....... ;)

What about the taxpayers in Uz who paid the taxes that made it possible........ :shock: :o :cry:

And on the other side of the war........

What about Muslims who pay zakat or other Muslim taxes or contributed to Muslim "charities or who bought Osama bin Ladin's brand of Honey ;) :twisted: :evil: furnishing funds for Jihad..............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#Comp ... _and_Jizya

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1594143.stm
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Hans Bulvai
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: Underneath everything

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Hans Bulvai »

Hoosiernorm wrote:
Hans Bulvai wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Parodite wrote:It is uncivil to physically threaten people, let alone kill them, let alone kill people not involved directly but only working in an embassy of the same country. It is blind, criminal, vulgar rage of the very lowest sort.
In Libya it was a planned terrorist attack by a terrorist organization with an agenda to disrupt post-revolutionary Libya democracy. It's not "blind rage," though it may be criminal.

But, in principle, is there something Satanic about attacking American diplomatic posts, if you belong to a group of people the US has declared it is at war with and will kill anywhere, any way it can, and does, though often killing many more civilians than actual terrorists? It seems like business as usual for all concerned.

This goes back to my tiresome point that nobody has really addressed so far. The US kills people all the time using the exact same methods as terrorists, they just deliver their bombs that mangle actual targets and civilians indiscriminately using different methods. So we can probably dispense with the fiction that there is some kind of civilized faction to contrast with a barbaric faction behaving unspeakably.
Raphsody and I argued this point some time ago. His argument was that those delivering the high tech bombs have no "intention" of killing civilians regardless whether they know that a 2000 lbs bomb being dropped on a residential area does just that. He never would answer my question of whether the pilot dropping that bomb knew where the bomb was being dropped and what it would do... :?
Pilots don't choose their targets they are given to them. They fly their missions report their achieving target destination and then drop their ordinance. There is no judgment to be made on what they bomb because they don't choose what to bomb or not bomb they just follow flight plans. It's a no risk proposition for a pilot. Now close air support is a different subject and they do chose who to shoot at and who not to shoot at. They pick an area that is being called in as hostile and then perform an assessment that still requires an order to allow them to engage a target but they have a lot more say in who gets shot and who doesn't. The drone guys get about the same sterilized information as the pilot who drops bombs. The guy that flies the recon flight doesn't analyze his own data someone else does. That guy writes a report and usually takes all of the known data that they have from local sources and makes it all fit together. Then they write an action report and someone draws up a flight with approved strikes and non approved strikes. The target strike flight pilot only hits his target, he is not told what it was or who it is only where it is. He is never told if the flight kills civilians just that a target was hit with success or failure.
They know, Hoosier.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... -civilians
...

Take the second round of shooting in the 38-minute sequence. It revolves around a dark-coloured minivan that approaches a wounded man lying by the pavement and trying to drag himself to his feet. Two men jump out and go to his aid. Neither is carrying a weapon. They pay no attention to the bodies lying several yards away. Yet the cockpit recording has their commander saying "they have individuals going to the scene, looks like possibly uh picking up bodies and weapons". The helicopters get permission to blast the van regardless, even though firing on people who are aiding casualties violates US rules of engagement and international law.

The intelligence report of the incident says Crazyhorse "engaged AIF". In fact there is nothing seen by the helicopter pilots to show the men are insurgents. Indeed, when US ground troops reach the shot-up van a few minutes later they discover its passengers include two small girls who have been wounded, suggesting it was an innocent civilian vehicle that had rushed to help the wounded victim because it was the nearest transport available.

The third bout of gunfire from the helicopters comes when they destroy a large building on a street corner with three Hellfire missiles. Before firing the first one the pilot says: "There are at least six individuals in that building with weapons." The cockpit video has shown only one man going into the building, carrying something that might be a weapon. Two clearly unarmed men then go in and another unarmed man walks past the entrance seconds before the gunner launches his missile. Over the next few minutes the helicopters fire two more missiles in order to destroy the building completely.

As untrue as the helicopter pilots' live reporting was, the intelligence summary they filed later compounds the lies. Now the alleged gunmen are said to have been running into the building – clearly more suspicious behaviour than walking.
I don't buy supremacy
Media chief
You menace me
The people you say
'Cause all the crime
Wake up motherfucker
And smell the slime
User avatar
Hans Bulvai
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: Underneath everything

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Hans Bulvai »

Hoosiernorm wrote:
Jnalum Persicum wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:.

When you are given coordinates for a fire mission you hit your grid as accurately as possible. The drone guys get a building or a house in a specific place. They do not know the occupants of the house or how many or if anyone is there. They just fly missions, it is as plain as that. No one worried too much about the building it's just a building or a house or a complex, it's just stuff they are making strikes on. They fly a strike and go back home to watch the kids play soccer or watch TV, life is not complicated for drone pilots.

.

If
You are talking about "if's" why not make it a million children killed or a billion children killed. I can't take an argument seriously if all you are going to do is argue based on "If". Besides, I don't know how the CIA determines it's targets or how their chain of command works for strikes.
Now they know the results for sure.
Lets see how that will change things.

(From the last page)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 74771.html
I don't buy supremacy
Media chief
You menace me
The people you say
'Cause all the crime
Wake up motherfucker
And smell the slime
Hoosiernorm
Posts: 2206
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: Attacks on US diplomats/embassies.

Post by Hoosiernorm »

Enki wrote:
Hoosiernorm wrote:When you are given coordinates for a fire mission you hit your grid as accurately as possible. The drone guys get a building or a house in a specific place. They do not know the occupants of the house or how many or if anyone is there. They just fly missions, it is as plain as that. No one worried too much about the building it's just a building or a house or a complex, it's just stuff they are making strikes on. They fly a strike and go back home to watch the kids play soccer or watch TV, life is not complicated for drone pilots.
And this is precisely why it is one of the most hideous evils in all of history.

And the drone pilots certainly know what they are doing. They are aware of the consequences of their actions. My cousin fired Tomahawks, he was aware of what was happening.
They aren't using Tomahawks on Drones yet, they are too darn big. The current ordinance for a Predator is the Hellfire. The guidance is different and when a target it either painted or fed the ordinance just finishes what has already been fed into it or follows a laser to it's mark. Tomahawks only work on really big targets, to hit a house and kill everyone inside you use a hellfire. To make the house disappear you use a Tomahawk.
Been busy doing stuff
Post Reply