"Almost all terrorists are Muslim" derail split from "Rants"

[Loren Pechtel]

The largest group of terrorists wear suits and ties and they operate out of Washington DC.

They have terrorized far more people than anybody else over the last decade.

And these people are not Muslim.

To look at the world and see Muslims as the largest problem is really to be blind.

You're stretching the truth all out of shape in order to blame the US for everything.

 

[untermensche]

The largest group of terrorists wear suits and ties and they operate out of Washington DC.

They have terrorized far more people than anybody else over the last decade.

And these people are not Muslim.

To look at the world and see Muslims as the largest problem is really to be blind.

You're stretching the truth all out of shape in order to blame the US for everything.

The invasion of Iraq fits many definitions of terrorism.

Violence and torture to effect political change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're stretching the truth all out of shape in order to blame the US for everything.

The invasion of Iraq fits many definitions of terrorism.

Violence and torture to effect political change.

What you are missing is that the violence must be directed at non-combatants.

As for the torture bit--you're mixing up the invasion with the fight against the foreign-sponsored terrorists that came after the invasion.

 

[untermensche]

The invasion of Iraq fits many definitions of terrorism.

Violence and torture to effect political change.

What you are missing is that the violence must be directed at non-combatants.

As for the torture bit--you're mixing up the invasion with the fight against the foreign-sponsored terrorists that came after the invasion.

The torture was terrorism. Innocent civilians were tortured. This is meant to terrorize the others.

The invasion was terrorism. Innocent civilians were not spared simply for expedience and swiftness, and not because of necessity.

And the term "directed at" can easily mean "in the direction of" and a lot of bombs were dropped and bullets fired in the direction of civilians.

 

[angelo]

Not the US or any democratic power deliberately aims there bombs at civilians. In the Iraqi war the vast majority of shock & awe cruise missiles were aimed at military targets with civilian deaths been collateral damage.. Hamas for example are the opposite. They fire their rockets at civilian targets hoping to kill as many civilians as possible. If rockets are fired from a school as Hamas does, that school becomes a legitimate target.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you are missing is that the violence must be directed at non-combatants.

As for the torture bit--you're mixing up the invasion with the fight against the foreign-sponsored terrorists that came after the invasion.

The torture was terrorism. Innocent civilians were tortured. This is meant to terrorize the others.

The invasion was terrorism. Innocent civilians were not spared simply for expedience and swiftness, and not because of necessity.

And the term "directed at" can easily mean "in the direction of" and a lot of bombs were dropped and bullets fired in the direction of civilians.

Untermensche is a terrorist. You keep terrorizing this forum with your claims of terrorism.

(Well, it's about as accurate a use of the word as you have been using.)

 

[bilby]

Not the US or any democratic power deliberately aims there bombs at civilians. In the Iraqi war the vast majority of shock & awe cruise missiles were aimed at military targets with civilian deaths been collateral damage.. Hamas for example are the opposite. They fire their rockets at civilian targets hoping to kill as many civilians as possible. If rockets are fired from a school as Hamas does, that school becomes a legitimate target.

The reason the US doesn't aim at civilians is because, as of the last ten or twenty years, they have the technology, money, and strategy that make such an approach possible.

Only a few decades ago, they didn't have the technology in sufficient quantity, and at that time nobody inside the armed forces or government suggested that there was any moral issue with collateral damage, that was not outweighed by the military objectives being pursued.

It's a pure luxury to avoid civilian casualties; the US was a functioning democracy when they nuked two cities in Japan to send a message to Russia; and when they and the UK (also a democracy) embarked on a deliberate campaign of fire-bombing German and Japanese cities for the express purpose of destroying worker's homes.

The moral niceties are a convenient opportunity for propaganda, when you have the power and the wealth to excercise them; but don't kid yourself that they are important to the military beyond their propaganda value. If a military objective requires it, the USAF have no more qualms than any other armed force in history about a few dead women and children.

Minimising civilian casualties is a 'nice to have', not a primary goal.

 

[fromderinside]

Minimising civilian casualties is a 'nice to have', not a primary goal.

I agree. All e=we have to do to minimize such propagandizing efforts is to bomb the shit out of all communications resources the enemy might have. If its yells and stones they use just bomb all high points from which they can yell or throw.

 

[untermensche]

The torture was terrorism. Innocent civilians were tortured. This is meant to terrorize the others.

The invasion was terrorism. Innocent civilians were not spared simply for expedience and swiftness, and not because of necessity.

And the term "directed at" can easily mean "in the direction of" and a lot of bombs were dropped and bullets fired in the direction of civilians.

Untermensche is a terrorist. You keep terrorizing this forum with your claims of terrorism.

(Well, it's about as accurate a use of the word as you have been using.)

I am sorry the truth terrorizes you.

Imagine if you were at the receiving end of a US terrorist attack.

Try.

 

[laughing dog]

Not the US or any democratic power deliberately aims there bombs at civilians. In the Iraqi war the vast majority of shock & awe cruise missiles were aimed at military targets with civilian deaths been collateral damage.. Hamas for example are the opposite. They fire their rockets at civilian targets hoping to kill as many civilians as possible. If rockets are fired from a school as Hamas does, that school becomes a legitimate target.

And there lies the irony. Hamas with its murderous intent kills and injures far fewer civilian than the IDF with its "military target" retaliation policy. Go figure.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not the US or any democratic power deliberately aims there bombs at civilians. In the Iraqi war the vast majority of shock & awe cruise missiles were aimed at military targets with civilian deaths been collateral damage.. Hamas for example are the opposite. They fire their rockets at civilian targets hoping to kill as many civilians as possible. If rockets are fired from a school as Hamas does, that school becomes a legitimate target.

The reason the US doesn't aim at civilians is because, as of the last ten or twenty years, they have the technology, money, and strategy that make such an approach possible.

Only a few decades ago, they didn't have the technology in sufficient quantity, and at that time nobody inside the armed forces or government suggested that there was any moral issue with collateral damage, that was not outweighed by the military objectives being pursued.

It's a pure luxury to avoid civilian casualties; the US was a functioning democracy when they nuked two cities in Japan to send a message to Russia; and when they and the UK (also a democracy) embarked on a deliberate campaign of fire-bombing German and Japanese cities for the express purpose of destroying worker's homes.

The moral niceties are a convenient opportunity for propaganda, when you have the power and the wealth to excercise them; but don't kid yourself that they are important to the military beyond their propaganda value. If a military objective requires it, the USAF have no more qualms than any other armed force in history about a few dead women and children.

Minimising civilian casualties is a 'nice to have', not a primary goal.

Apparently you don't understand the word "aim".

In times past we haven't had the ability to single out the targets of interest from the civilians around them. That doesn't mean we were aiming at civilians, it means we hit a lot of civilians in addition to the targets we were after.

I will not fault a low-tech army for the use of inaccurate weapons. I will fault them when the aim point is not a valid target.

- - - Updated - - -

Untermensche is a terrorist. You keep terrorizing this forum with your claims of terrorism.

(Well, it's about as accurate a use of the word as you have been using.)

I am sorry the truth terrorizes you.

Imagine if you were at the receiving end of a US terrorist attack.

Try.

I might as well imagine I'm on Mars. Both are about equally likely.

 

[untermensche]

I am sorry the truth terrorizes you.

Imagine if you were at the receiving end of a US terrorist attack.

Try.

I might as well imagine I'm on Mars. Both are about equally likely.

One can only lead a horse to water.

 

[angelo]

So not having guidance systems makes it right to aim your rockets indiscriminately?

 

[laughing dog]

So not having guidance systems makes it right to aim your rockets indiscriminately?

No. Does having guidance systems make the expected massive collateral civilian damage right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I might as well imagine I'm on Mars. Both are about equally likely.

One can only lead a horse to water.

Except you're trying to lead to a mirage, not water.

 

[Jokodo]

The reason the US doesn't aim at civilians is because, as of the last ten or twenty years, they have the technology, money, and strategy that make such an approach possible.

Only a few decades ago, they didn't have the technology in sufficient quantity, and at that time nobody inside the armed forces or government suggested that there was any moral issue with collateral damage, that was not outweighed by the military objectives being pursued.

It's a pure luxury to avoid civilian casualties; the US was a functioning democracy when they nuked two cities in Japan to send a message to Russia; and when they and the UK (also a democracy) embarked on a deliberate campaign of fire-bombing German and Japanese cities for the express purpose of destroying worker's homes.

The moral niceties are a convenient opportunity for propaganda, when you have the power and the wealth to excercise them; but don't kid yourself that they are important to the military beyond their propaganda value. If a military objective requires it, the USAF have no more qualms than any other armed force in history about a few dead women and children.

Minimising civilian casualties is a 'nice to have', not a primary goal.

Apparently you don't understand the word "aim".

In times past we haven't had the ability to single out the targets of interest from the civilians around them. That doesn't mean we were aiming at civilians, it means we hit a lot of civilians in addition to the targets we were after.

There were explicit directives to target civilians:

The  Area Bombing Directive was a directive from the wartime British Government's Air Ministry to the Royal Air Force which ordered RAF bombers to attack the German industrial workforce and the morale of the German populace through bombing German cities and their civilian inhabitants.

 

[Underseer]

The reason the US doesn't aim at civilians is because, as of the last ten or twenty years, they have the technology, money, and strategy that make such an approach possible.

Only a few decades ago, they didn't have the technology in sufficient quantity, and at that time nobody inside the armed forces or government suggested that there was any moral issue with collateral damage, that was not outweighed by the military objectives being pursued.

It's a pure luxury to avoid civilian casualties; the US was a functioning democracy when they nuked two cities in Japan to send a message to Russia; and when they and the UK (also a democracy) embarked on a deliberate campaign of fire-bombing German and Japanese cities for the express purpose of destroying worker's homes.

The moral niceties are a convenient opportunity for propaganda, when you have the power and the wealth to excercise them; but don't kid yourself that they are important to the military beyond their propaganda value. If a military objective requires it, the USAF have no more qualms than any other armed force in history about a few dead women and children.

Minimising civilian casualties is a 'nice to have', not a primary goal.

Apparently you don't understand the word "aim".

In times past we haven't had the ability to single out the targets of interest from the civilians around them. That doesn't mean we were aiming at civilians, it means we hit a lot of civilians in addition to the targets we were after.

I will not fault a low-tech army for the use of inaccurate weapons. I will fault them when the aim point is not a valid target.

- - - Updated - - -

Untermensche is a terrorist. You keep terrorizing this forum with your claims of terrorism.

(Well, it's about as accurate a use of the word as you have been using.)

I am sorry the truth terrorizes you.

Imagine if you were at the receiving end of a US terrorist attack.

Try.

I might as well imagine I'm on Mars. Both are about equally likely.

We intended to kill large numbers of civilians. That was the whole point of the bombing. The firebombing campaign in Japan was even worse, both in civilian death toll and intent.

Our military history is full of the intentional slaughter of civilians from the conflicts with indigenous Americans to the Vietnam War and beyond.

 

[DrZoidberg]

There should be some alternative to Godwins law about the inevitability, given enough time, of any Internet discussion to turn into a discussion on the Israel/Palestine conflict.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Not the US or any democratic power deliberately aims there bombs at civilians.

Incorrect and irrelevant. For one thing, Taliban militants, by virtue of their not actually belonging to a standing military organization, ARE civilians by any coherent definition. Moreover, "deliberately targeting civilians" is not the defining trait of terrorism. Threat of violence and/or deadly force to extort political change IS. In that regard, at least, there is a tremendous difference between a terrorist and a militant or an insurgent. Terrorism is a tactic of disruptive theatrics; a militant insurgent generally has more concrete military and political goals that cannot be achieved with terrorism alone.

In the Iraqi war the vast majority of shock & awe cruise missiles were aimed at military targets with civilian deaths been collateral damage.. Hamas for example are the opposite. They fire their rockets at civilian targets hoping to kill as many civilians as possible.

See above. Deliberately targeting civilians doesn't make someone a terrorist. Actually, Hamas more closely fits the definition of terrorism the more it uses the THREAT of targeting civilians as a political tool; the actual practice of doing so is not particularly effective, and Hamas would still be factually engaging in terrorism even if none of its rockets actually had warheads.

If rockets are fired from a school as Hamas does, that school becomes a legitimate target.

Incorrect. The people who launched the rocket become legitimate targets. The school, its students, its faculty and owners, do not. Guilt by association remains a logical fallacy, especially for civilized nations that (in theory) respect the right of due process.

 

[untermensche]

It is pure ignorance to say that terrorism only exists when civilians are deliberately targeted.

Terrorism can exist when a military is attacked. If it is a terrorist attack.

The target has nothing to do with whether or not something is terrorism.

If an attack has no moral justification then it is a terrorist attack.

The invasion of Vietnam was a terrorist attack. The invasions of Grenada and Panama were terrorist attacks. The US funded and directed attacks of Nicaragua were terrorist attacks. The invasion of Iraq was a terrorist attack.

The US has engaged in far more terrorism than any Muslim group. They are rank amateurs compared to the US.