19 Mar 04
Originally posted by rwingett19 terrorists...
As we all remember, on September 11th, 2001, 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died. Much of the world condemned the attacks as vile examples of terrorism.
Now go back some 56 years.
On the night of March 10-11, 1945, 334 U.S. B- ...[text shortened]... on a massive scale during the war, we decided that that didn't constitute a war crime anymore.
17 of them from Saudi Arabia.
An interesting equation.
19 terrorists. Has there ever been a trial? Has Osama been found guilty?
"Oh.." I hear you all in chorus, "he admitted to doing it."
I give you that he would have liked to have done it and probably wants to take the blame. As with so many loonies. It doesn't prove guilt though, and in my (and your legal books) you are innocent until proven guilty (with the obvious exception of Guatanamo bay...).
17 from Saudi Arabia.
Imagine 17 of them had been from Iran. Or Iraq. Or France.
Wouldn't there have been SOME government condemnation?
Not once did I hear this being described as a Saudi attack on the US. No, straight off it was Al Qaeda.
19 terrorists
17 from Saudi Arabia
Not one trial
And Afghanistan gets bombed.
I know there's logic here somewhere...Let's dig a little deeper shall we?
Yes, let us...
The Carlyle group.
Ever heard of it?
It's a consulting firm. Bush sr. and Bin Laden sr. are high ranking members of it.
The Bin laden's are a very important family in Saudi Arabia....the world's number one oil producing nation...
Oh, but wait... What's this got to do with Afghanistan?
I'm not really sure.
I do know however that in may of 2001 the Taliban received 43 million $ from the US (destroying opium crops). Now, the US is giving the Taliban this money while they know they are harbouring un-proven terrorists? Or did they just find out they were doing this after september?
Well, I'm sure it's as kosher as pig's meat...
Anyway, to cheer you all up I went scurrying around the internet and dug up a list of countries the US has 'busied' themselves with since 1945: http://www.peaceforiraq.org/resources/costofwar.htm
I'm sure God is on their side...
hehehe
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by shavixmirAccording to the Carlyle Group's website, Bush Sr. holds no current position in the organization, but was Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board. According to the website, Bush Sr. retired in Oct. of 2003. The site says nothing about bin Laden Sr., but denies any investments in Saudi Arabia. So, where did you get this information that both Bush Sr. and bin Laden Sr. are high ranking members of this organization?
19 terrorists...
17 of them from Saudi Arabia.
An interesting equation.
19 terrorists. Has there ever been a trial? Has Osama been found guilty?
"Oh.." I hear you all in chorus, "he admitted to doing it."
I give you that he would have liked to have done it and probably wants to take the blame. As with so many loonies. It doesn't prove guilt ...[text shortened]... http://www.peaceforiraq.org/resources/costofwar.htm
I'm sure God is on their side...
hehehe
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by dfm65So, are you saying that it is OK to kill any number of civilians you want as long as you claim to have a good reason? If that's so, then you're saying that the ends do justify the means, and that it is OK to commit vile acts as long as they contribute to the larger overall good. This whole line of reasoning seems to me to be morally indefensible.
For a start, people waging war in the name of a state, in uniform, are not terrorists. To say that they are stretches the definition of the term so as to make it vastly less useful.
Whether or not LeMay was guilty of a war crime is another matter. Tokyo was the Japanese capital, which makes it also the seat of the emperor, regardless of whather he actually re ...[text shortened]... , standards have changed, and the deliberate slaughter of civilians does constitute a war crime.
The bombing of civilian targets was not the standard of the time. The first major instance of such an act was during the Spanish Civil War, in 1937, when Franco's German pilots bombed the Basque town of Guernica. 1,600 people were killed and the world reacted in horror. Picasso painted his famous Guernica mural in response to the attack. The Germans went on to bomb Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, London, etc. during WWII. Each time the world reacted in horror and condemned such tactics...until they decided to adopt them for themselves. The Allies became disenchanted with the effects of precision bombing and began to indiscriminantly blast whole cities into annihilation, inflicting damage and casualties that dwarfed those meted out by the Luftwaffe. It was only from about 1943-1945 that the wholesale slaughter of civilian targets became the standard practice for both sides.
As for whether you wear nicely pressed uniform and wage a state sanctioned war in the pursuit of your slaughter, seems to be of little practical importance. Trying to put a thin veneer of respectability on the whole sordid affair is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize what most human beings know is a morally indefensible act.
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by rwingettJust because something causes terror, doesn't make it terrorism, otherwise plenty of dentists would be bombed by Blair and Bush 😛
As for whether you wear nicely pressed uniform and wage a state sanctioned war in the pursuit of your slaughter, seems to be of little practical importance. Trying to put a thin veneer of respectability on the whole sordid affair is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize what most human beings know is a morally indefensible act.
But seriously, the American attack was a military attack, not terrorism. Terrorism is characterised by geurrilla-like tactics. If Bush or Blair secretly funded small groups of individuals who planted bombs in cities of another country, then they would be guilty of state sponsored terrorism.
The strike you mention can never be described as terrorism. Maybe war crimes or excessive aggression or something. But as they won, they got to decide that.
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by VargThis sounds like nothing more than an exercise in semantics. When we blast civilians, it's a military operation. When they blast civilians, it's terrorism. Either way, thousands of civilians die.
Just because something causes terror, doesn't make it terrorism, otherwise plenty of dentists would be bombed by Blair and Bush 😛
But seriously, the American attack was a military attack, not terrorism. Terrorism is characterised by geurrilla-like tactics. If Bush or Blair secretly funded small groups of individuals who planted bombs in cities of another c ...[text shortened]... Maybe war crimes or excessive aggression or something. But as they won, they got to decide that.
But lets look a little closer at the definition of terrorism. During WWII, the Germans used both V1 and V2 rockets against targets in England and elsewhere. These weapons are often described by various sources as being "terror weapons", i.e. they were not aimed at a specific target, but were intended to stike indiscriminantly amongst the civilian populace and "terrorize" them. This seems to be the essence of terrorism. When the Allies dropped their precision bombing campaign and began to destroy whole cities, they were engaging in similar tactics. The object was not to take out specific military targets, but rather to terrorize the enemy populace and break their will to resist.
The Allies had the opportunity to define the large scale bombing of civilian targets for what it was, which is terrorism. But instead they allowed themselves to be dragged into the moral cesspit of terrorism themselves and have spent the last 50 years trying to justify their actions, both to themselves, and to the world at large.
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by rwingettWell of course no administration would admit that what they do is bad (terrorism). But as I said, it's more than just causing terror.
This sounds like nothing more than an exercise in semantics. When we blast civilians, it's a military operation. When they blast civilians, it's terrorism. Either way, thousands of civilians die.
I see what you're arguing for, but I think it would be better to say: we bomb them and say it's justified, or whatever.
They bomb us (or even a third party) and we say they're bad.
Maybe it's because terrorism is seen as 'worse' than a military attack.
I agree, that there is little difference in terms of lives, etc. between 'Bomber' Harris killing thousands and a handful of militants with a hijacked plane killing thousands. But one is terrorism and one isn't.
19 Mar 04
my issue with the United States 'justified' attack is that the purpose seemed to be revenge. Revenge is not a legitimate motive in my book. The thought 'they killed our civilians so it's ok to kill theirs' is as juvenile thought as 'but he started it' and can bring no real resolution to any problems.
some will say - the US attackes to destroy terrorist infrastructure and dwindle their resources. That's silly as well. Terrorist by definition don't have infrastructure (otherwise they'd be a hostile country)and the pnly resources they have are the haenous acts that the US keeps commiting that keep the hatered alive.
Blaming a country for 'allowing' terrorists to operate from within it is silly as well. You might as well blame Israel for 'allowing' Palestinian extremists to live there.
just my thoughts.
- Joined
- 26 Apr 03
- Moves
- 26771
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by rwingettIn my opinion the American attack, whilst horrific and evil, lacked the necessary clandestine element for Terrorism - even without the question of whether it was legal or not..
As we all remember, on September 11th, 2001, 19 terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into both towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania. Nearly 3,000 people died. Much of the world condemned the attacks as vile examples of terrorism.
Now go back some 56 years.
On the night of March 10-11, 1945, 334 U.S. B- ...[text shortened]... on a massive scale during the war, we decided that that didn't constitute a war crime anymore.
If the Americans had not declared war on Japan after pearl harbour, but had quietly built the atomic bomb, bombed Japan with an anonymous plane and then denied it was them - then that would have been more like terrorism.
19 Mar 04
Originally posted by rwingettNo, but i am saying that when you are fighting a war you want to win with the fewest number of casualties on your own side, no matter the cost to the other side, and that this is justifiable, since governments have a responsibility to their own citizens to act in their interests. So, if the US high command thought bombing Tokyo or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would save American and Allied lives, then it is morally defensible. The one exception to the above principle i can think of is the case of a large scale nuclear strike, which could have global environmental consequences.
So, are you saying that it is OK to kill any number of civilians you want as long as you claim to have a good reason? If that's so, then you're saying that the ends do justify the means, and that it is OK to commit vile acts as long as they contribute to the larger overall good. This whole line of reasoning seems to me to be morally indefensible. ...[text shortened]... g more than an attempt to rationalize what most human beings know is a morally indefensible act.
I agree with the facts about large-scale bombing of civilians, but maintain that it had become the standard of the time, however recently. but perhaps it would be better to say that it was the first time in history this had been technically possible (on such a large scale), so no standards had yet been formulated. Just as there was no legislation to deal with, say, in vitro fertilisation before it became technically possible to do it. laws and standards always lag technology.
I'm not trying to put a 'veneer of respectability' on anything, merely to point out that there are specific criteria to be met for an act to be regarded as 'terrorism' - 9/11 met these criteria, and the US attack on Afghanistan/Iraq did not. That is not to condone either kind of attack.
20 Mar 04
my understanding of organised mass murder of civilians, of one cultural group by another cultural group, is that it has been very common throughout the history of humans.
if you expand the view even wider to include mass murder of one species by another it is also regularly evident.
the fact that hitler didn't imediately aim for civilian deaths in england was not because it was unusual in military tactics, it was because he wanted to consider england as a friend.
as he became aware that england was not going to join him he turned to a combination of ignoring england, attacking russia, and killing english civilians.
today it is easier to murder large numbers of people because we have a higher population and more powerful technologies.
the geneva conventions for protecting civilians in the time of war were only introduced in 1949 - better late than never.
20 Mar 04
Originally posted by dfm65I have to disagree with "no matter the cost to the other side". If you fail to consider the other side's civilian casualties likely to be caused by an attack, and only look at the lives that may be saved on your own side, you are not acting in a morally defensible manner.
No, but i am saying that when you are fighting a war you want to win with the fewest number of casualties on your own side, no matter the cost to the other side, and that this is justifiable, since governments have a responsibility to their own citizens to act in their interests. So, if the US high command thought bombing Tokyo or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki would save American and Allied lives, then it is morally defensible.
For example, if there is a lone enemy combatant hiding in a village of "enemy" civilians (I use quotes because civilians can not be enemies, by definition), you could very likely kill the enemy combatant by levelling the entire village with artillery, with little to no risk to your own soldiers. However, this response would not be morally defensible because it is way out of proportion to the threat posed by the lone enemy.
With respect to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you could argue that the first one (Hiroshima) was a proportional response to the threat posed by Japan, but dropping the second one 3 days later was overkill, imho.
20 Mar 04
1 edit
Originally posted by UncleAdami think a part of the point is something like :
correct me if i am wrong, but i belive the 19 terrorists died in the attack.......how do we give dead people a trial?
the new york hijackers/murderers came mostly from saudi arabia, so we should investigate any connection between saudi arabia and the u.s. very closely.