What really happened in Abottabad

[Jimmy Higgins]

And according to Nuremberg principles the US is responsible for all those deaths.

Why do I get the feeling that when I talk about Nuremberg principles you don't have a clue what I'm talking about?

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about. You are droning on about a 1,000,000 number that was based on weak statistical analysis. Now you are saying that the 100,000 to 200,000 number I'm offering is accurate after all. Which is it?

It should be noted that Iraq wasn't terrorism. It was nation building, and incompetent action at that.

You can call it whatever you want.

Well, I was trying to call it what it was... maybe I should have said red herring instead?

No. You called it simply what the people who ordered it called it. That is the level of your analysis.

Actually, I think they called it American Freedom and Justice.

It's been demonstrated. Look. I'm not doing a research project for you because you are too lazy.

So I'm lazy for asking you to demonstrate a point you claimed.

It is your claim the trial was fair and mine it wasn't. You need to defend your position as well as I do.

I actually didn't claim anything, other than the trial was open and the files are available to peruse and condemn. That statement is true.

 

[untermensche]

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about. You are droning on about a 1,000,000 number that was based on weak statistical analysis. Now you are saying that the 100,000 to 200,000 number I'm offering is accurate after all. Which is it?

Do you know what these "Nuremberg principles" I keep talking about are?

Because if you don't then engagement is not going to be productive.

Specifically you need to know about "Crime against peace".

It should be noted that Iraq wasn't terrorism. It was nation building, and incompetent action at that.

You can call it whatever you want.

Well, I was trying to call it what it was... maybe I should have said red herring instead?

No. You called it simply what the people who ordered it called it. That is the level of your analysis.

Actually, I think they called it American Freedom and Justice.

How you twist to not call a clear act of terrorism what it was. Why does the US get such a double standard?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do you know what these "Nuremberg principles" I keep talking about are?

Because if you don't then engagement is not going to be productive.

Specifically you need to know about "Crime against peace".

So we are settling on red herring now.

It should be noted that Iraq wasn't terrorism. It was nation building, and incompetent action at that.

You can call it whatever you want.

Well, I was trying to call it what it was... maybe I should have said red herring instead?

No. You called it simply what the people who ordered it called it. That is the level of your analysis.

Actually, I think they called it American Freedom and Justice.

How you twist to not call a clear act of terrorism what it was. Why does the US get such a double standard?

It can be argued Iraq was a war crime. It certainly wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is a word in the English language. It has a meaning.

 

[untermensche]

So we are settling on red herring now.

You don't even know what the Nuremberg principles are, yet somehow you know they are a red herring.

It can be argued Iraq was a war crime. It certainly wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is a word in the English language. It has a meaning.

What definition are you using?

Attacks of innocents to further political aims is a pretty accepted definition.

Why you have so much trouble calling clear terrorism what it was is not clear.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You don't even know what the Nuremberg principles are, yet somehow you know they are a red herring.

You seem to be arguing via the Pronoun Fallacy. Look everyone! I'm using a term with a capital letter in the front, therefore whatever I'm saying (even though I'm not even certain what I'm either arguing for or what the other guy is arguing for... or even agreeing with me) has to be true!

It can be argued Iraq was a war crime. It certainly wasn't terrorism. Terrorism is a word in the English language. It has a meaning.

What definition are you using?

Attacks of innocents to further political aims is a pretty accepted definition.

Hussein wasn't taken from power because of his political views. I don't know if we will ever truly know why it happened, whether revenge for the HW Bush assassination plot or Neocons angry for some reason, but it most likely wasn't because of Hussein's political views. Those hadn't changed between the time the Neocons were his buddy and when they removed him from power.

 

[J842P]

I think it's silly to argue that removing a person from power isn't a political aim.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think it's silly to argue that removing a person from power isn't a political aim.

Terrorism isn't about a person, it is about an ideology. Hussein wasn't ousted by W and the Neocons because of his take on health care or religion in politics. Venezuela could be argued to be have been terrorism, though perhaps a bit too direct to the point in trying to off the leader.

 

[untermensche]

You seem to be arguing via the Pronoun Fallacy. Look everyone! I'm using a term with a capital letter in the front, therefore whatever I'm saying (even though I'm not even certain what I'm either arguing for or what the other guy is arguing for... or even agreeing with me) has to be true!

When you learn what the Nuremberg principles are, get back to me. You might then actually have something to say that isn't complete gibberish.

Attacks of innocents to further political aims is a pretty accepted definition.

Hussein wasn't taken from power because of his political views....

Thanks for that irrelevancy.

Taking him out of power was a political aim.

Killing innocents to accomplish it was terrorism.

 

[J842P]

I think it's silly to argue that removing a person from power isn't a political aim.

Terrorism isn't about a person, it is about an ideology. Hussein wasn't ousted by W and the Neocons because of his take on health care or religion in politics. Venezuela could be argued to be have been terrorism, though perhaps a bit too direct to the point in trying to off the leader.

Terrorism is a poorly defined term even in the best of cases. In the modern political context it merely means violent actions by people I don't like.

That being said, terrorism per this definition is not about effecting some political ideology, but about effecting a political aim. If some nut hated a particular representative in his district for purely personal reasons and threatened to bomb public spaces until that person resigned then most people here would be comfortable calling that person a terrorist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Terrorism isn't about a person, it is about an ideology. Hussein wasn't ousted by W and the Neocons because of his take on health care or religion in politics. Venezuela could be argued to be have been terrorism, though perhaps a bit too direct to the point in trying to off the leader.

Terrorism is a poorly defined term even in the best of cases. In the modern political context it merely means violent actions by people I don't like.

Hinckley wasn't a terrorist.

That being said, terrorism per this definition is not about effecting some political ideology, but about effecting a political aim.

So ideology and aim are different here?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Normally enemy soldiers are not given trials. The usual procedure is to shoot one when you see him. Complex missions are sometimes laid on to go after enemy commanders, still no trials.

Except this is a phoney war carried out under deceit and lies.

Enemy soldiers are most definitely given trials.

You may have heard of Nuremberg.

After the war--and only for war crimes, not for any legitimate acts of war.

We tried people for the death camps, not for fighting.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the more likely scenario, with regard to why OBL was killed rather than captured, is that the SEAL team was instructed to capture OBL if possible, or kill him if he resisted, and at least one person on the SEAL team decided that OBL was going to "die while resisting" no matter what went down.

- - - Updated - - -



So, the take away here is that you don't actually care enough to attempt to demonstrate this yourself?

I have read it.

For example; Moussaoi was charged with being part of 911 yet not one shred of evidence directly connecting him to 911 has ever been released by the US government.

Anybody who cared would know this.

Evidence is normally not presented when someone makes a guilty plea.

 

[untermensche]

Except this is a phoney war carried out under deceit and lies.

Enemy soldiers are most definitely given trials.

You may have heard of Nuremberg.

After the war--and only for war crimes, not for any legitimate acts of war.

All violent actions in an illegitimate war are crimes.

And there is no need to wait until the US tires of it's aggression to try war criminals.

 

[ZiprHead]

Okay, okay. All this derailing aside...

What would the purpose be in lying about how OBL was killed.

I can understand lying about Pakistani assistance since Pakistan has a very large and sometimes radical Muslim population. Although my thought is keep Pakistan uninformed to keep them from warning OBL is the more plausible argument.

The rest of it, I just don't understand

 

[J842P]

After the war--and only for war crimes, not for any legitimate acts of war.

We tried people for the death camps, not for fighting.

Not true. Many were convicted for starting a war of aggression, or conspiring to.

 

[tupac chopra]

Okay, okay. All this derailing aside...

What would the purpose be in lying about how OBL was killed.

I can understand lying about Pakistani assistance since Pakistan has a very large and sometimes radical Muslim population. Although my thought is keep Pakistan uninformed to keep them from warning OBL is the more plausible argument.

The rest of it, I just don't understand

Maybe everything of this nature gets shaped before it is released. The plain truth is never released, it is always propagandized, always spun to make the spinners look better than they are.

 

[ZiprHead]

Okay, okay. All this derailing aside...

What would the purpose be in lying about how OBL was killed.

I can understand lying about Pakistani assistance since Pakistan has a very large and sometimes radical Muslim population. Although my thought is keep Pakistan uninformed to keep them from warning OBL is the more plausible argument.

The rest of it, I just don't understand

Maybe everything of this nature gets shaped before it is released. The plain truth is never released, it is always propagandized, always spun to make the spinners look better than they are.

I take spinning and outright total fabrications to be two different things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After the war--and only for war crimes, not for any legitimate acts of war.

All violent actions in an illegitimate war are crimes.

And there is no need to wait until the US tires of it's aggression to try war criminals.

Earth to untermensche: That's not how things work. We didn't try the German military command, we tried the people involved in the death camps.

 

[untermensche]

All violent actions in an illegitimate war are crimes.

And there is no need to wait until the US tires of it's aggression to try war criminals.

Earth to untermensche: That's not how things work. We didn't try the German military command, we tried the people involved in the death camps.

Why don't you actually read up on it before you just pull things from thin air?

 

[tupac chopra]

Maybe everything of this nature gets shaped before it is released. The plain truth is never released, it is always propagandized, always spun to make the spinners look better than they are.

I take spinning and outright total fabrications to be two different things.

Here are some ideas from Michael Brenner , Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. about why the story would be changed so much.

The Manufactured Myth of Bin Laden’s Death

Zero Dark Thirty is writing our collective history for us – engraving it on the American psyche. The graphic images of who we are and the deeds we have done are intended to inspire confidence and to soothe qualms – now and in the future. We are a Resourceful people. We are a Righteous people. We are a Resolute people who do not shrink from the necessary however hard it may be. We are a Moral people who bravely enter the shadowy precincts where Idealism collides with Realism – and come out enhanced.

The claim that the official US version provides an honest, forthright accounting is unsustainable. The version offered by Zero Dark Thirty substitutes pulp fiction – of the mythological kind – for truth. It satisfies a gnawing hunger; it meets a powerfully felt need. It allows us to avoid coming to terms with how America went off the rails after 9/11. It fosters the juvenile in us.

 

[arkirk]

Except this is a phoney war carried out under deceit and lies.

Enemy soldiers are most definitely given trials.

You may have heard of Nuremberg.

After the war--and only for war crimes, not for any legitimate acts of war.

We tried people for the death camps, not for fighting.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the more likely scenario, with regard to why OBL was killed rather than captured, is that the SEAL team was instructed to capture OBL if possible, or kill him if he resisted, and at least one person on the SEAL team decided that OBL was going to "die while resisting" no matter what went down.

- - - Updated - - -



So, the take away here is that you don't actually care enough to attempt to demonstrate this yourself?

I have read it.

For example; Moussaoi was charged with being part of 911 yet not one shred of evidence directly connecting him to 911 has ever been released by the US government.

Anybody who cared would know this.

Evidence is normally not presented when someone makes a guilty plea.

Again you come to the rescue of the notion ignorance is bliss. I wonder sometimes do you ever forget to apologize for ignorant violence. You failed to mention they don't have trials for thousands of civilians they kill...don't give me any more blather about necessity of collateral damage. Are you asserting we have no reason to know or NO RIGHT TO KNOW?

You always post to so many of us as if we were ignorant boobs who needed an education from you. You tell us so many things we already know. You tell so many of us how our thinking is defective. We all appreciate all this criticizm but I think you are missing the point...WE OUGHT TO CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS REGARDLESS OF ANYBODY'S POLICY OR POLITICAL POSITION. A civilian is a civilian and to kill one is murder. I suppose I can't blame you...Harry Truman never figured that out either.