User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: Vikings 
 Politics

Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.


All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..

As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.

Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!


*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

8. March 2009, 07:31:13
The Usurper 
Subject: Re: And BTW Usurper
Artful Dodger: "I was referring to the 750,000 Iraqi civilians you say we murdered."

The way I see it is this. Bombs are intended to kill. When we knowingly drop them on civilian targets (and we do), we know we are killing civilians. I think that meets the definition of murder-with-intent.

Some might say, this is war. Sure it is. And death in war has several causes, including acts of self-defense, accidents, and even temporary insanity (like acts of rage, 2nd degree murder). But war doesn't change the fact that the pre-meditated killing of innocents is murder. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, as in Hiroshima, etc., it is mass murder, i.e., genocide.

You're right, I don't spend much time pointing the finger at the atrocities committed by other peoples and nations. My first responsibility, as I see it, is to point the finger at myself (i.e., the U.S.), before pointing it at others. And unfortunately, the U.S. commits many astounding atrocities.

I know the U.S.S.R. murdered millions. I know there are Muslims who murder people. I know about the Khmer Rouge, and many genocides the world over. Most, unfortunatedly, we don't use our power to try to stop. And in some cases, we've actually instigated them, by supplying arms, etc.

I know you want to focus on the one issue for now, and as I said, I completely understand that. But in answer to your point about calling the deaths of Iraqi civilians murder, I wanted to clarify my position.

8. March 2009, 16:58:58
Czuch 
Subject: Re: And BTW Usurper
The Usurper: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government, in the form of a law, but you have zero proof that the US military ever specifically targeted civilians in Iraq!

8. March 2009, 21:35:47
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Not murder, the government cannot legally murder someone. If you are talking that your country in some states has the death penalty.... Then that is state sanctioned execution.

To say the government of the USA can murder people is to say that the USA government is above the law... or the government within the government.

8. March 2009, 21:40:49
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): Then that is state sanctioned execution.

Then so it is when a civilian is killed in a war too... and when an unborn child is aborted, right?

8. March 2009, 21:43:21
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Usurper used the word "murder" incorrectly. He's also inflated his numbers.

8. March 2009, 21:50:46
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Artful Dodger: According to him, the only time the government is honest and above board is when they are talking about the catastrophic dangers of global warming

8. March 2009, 21:53:31
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: According to a retired Canadian defence minister, your government is not run in many parts by your President. And has been this way for some while!!

Is that honest government?

8. March 2009, 21:56:37
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): Is that honest government?

That is the way our government is divided, it shouldnt be much of a surprise to anyone, really? It helps it be a more honest government, and is one reason why such a large scale conspiracy like 9/11 could not have taken place

8. March 2009, 22:01:07
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Modified by Mort (8. March 2009, 22:01:26)
Czuch: A goverment within the government that the President has no control over, reports to no-one and by that is seemingly above the law is honesty?

8. March 2009, 22:05:34
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): Not a government within the government... a government with 3 separate branches none beholden to the others

8. March 2009, 22:07:42
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Not what the guy said or meant. You know.. like the CIA.. everything is ok for them, including drug and gun running, etc, etc.

8. March 2009, 21:55:24
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Or indicting themselves for some evil they've done.

8. March 2009, 21:58:36
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Artful Dodger: Well, a soldier can always murder someone, just like any other person, but that does not constitute the military or the government....

8. March 2009, 22:04:04
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Well, a soldier can always murder someone, just like any other person, but that does not constitute the military or the government....
Czuch: Exactly. And we know that happens but clearly it's not a policy of the US military.

8. March 2009, 21:50:32
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: No, not always with a civilian killed in war, depends on the circumstances.

And as for abortion.... it depends on your views. I can accept that there are some reasons for abortion, but not always. As for it being murder... That depends on your view on when the unborn child becomes 'alive' as in 'alive' in soul and spirit. It's a tricky field as there are so many opinions.

8. March 2009, 21:54:15
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): No, not always with a civilian killed in war, depends on the circumstances.


well, except if the civilian is the specific target....

8. March 2009, 21:59:23
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Some cases I think an army can go OTT to get the few. Eg... When the Russians used that gas to rescue hostages.

Surely after all this time instead of making things that kill, why hasn't a non-lethal (or as low as possible eg 99% safe) gas or chemical been developed for use in the field?

8. March 2009, 22:03:50
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): I like the idea! Something that temporarily disables everyone long enough to restrain them....

but I can tell you that one reason it hasnt been developed yet is the extra headaches live people are compared to dead people.... talk about POWs

8. March 2009, 22:06:27
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Um The Geneva convention which the USA signed and practised during WWII and even were part of courts to which Axis military, etc were held to account for killing POW's.... was wrong?

8. March 2009, 22:08:46
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): I said nothing about killing POWs???

I said if you had a bomb that only temporarily disabled people, you would end up with a problem of way too many POWs, as compared with if the bomb simply killed everyone

8. March 2009, 22:13:01
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Modified by Mort (8. March 2009, 22:13:36)
Czuch: Um you said that it'd be better to kill enemy troops rather then take them as POW's.

Sorry I wasn't quite precise, but technically it is supposed that you try if possible to take prisoners rather then kill everyone. One of the reason military bullets are jacketed.

8. March 2009, 22:16:00
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): I thought you were asking why we dont make a bomb that disables instead of kills?

check your mail will ya?

8. March 2009, 22:17:21
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Not a bomb, more like a spray or airborne chemical that causes paralysis.

I did.

8. March 2009, 22:21:02
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): yes, a bomb that releases a chemical, thats what I meant...... like I said a great idea, but its no wonder the military isnt much interested in developing it

8. March 2009, 22:27:44
Mort 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Why not... It would be great for urban combat, great for hostage situations.

The lives saved alone in military op's involving urban combat in the form of our troops would be worth the investment alone.

8. March 2009, 22:30:42
Czuch 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
(V): we already have tear gas and others....

8. March 2009, 22:17:02
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: "murder" is legal and acceptable if it is sanctioned by the government.....
Czuch: Seems to me that all the problems the US has to put up with regarding "detainees" it would be much easier to just shoot them all. Easier to shoot and bury them than it is to accommodate every whine of the left over their treatment

*note to critics: not saying we SHOULD do this. Just seems so odd that more of a stink is raised over the US and its actions and you hear almost NOTHING from the critics regarding the terrorists. Hamas fires rockets everyday into Israel. Israel does nothing for months. Finally Israel responds and WHAM, the critics are there defending poor Hamas and Gaza and condemning Israel But little to no mention of the constant rockets being fired into Israel. Were the tables turned, Israel would be condemned for the rocket fire and Hamas would be justified for a heavy handed response.

8. March 2009, 20:58:23
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: And BTW Usurper
The Usurper:First of all, your 750,000 figure is extremely inflated.  According to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ the figure is under 100,000.

Secondly, a large percentage of these deaths are due to suicide bombers, roadside bombs, and other terrorist acts. 

I'm not saying that it's ok to kill any civilian.  And I'm not saying collateral damage "happens."  Even though it does.  But if the US went in to liberate Iraq, then killing any of their citizens, even accidently, is a very unfortunate thing and should be prevented at all costs.  But where ever you get those figures, it's wrong. 

According the Boston Globe the total figure will never accurately be known.  Even if your figure were correct, a majority of deaths come from within. 

The following is an example and can be found on Michael Moore's website: "The deadliest single incident in February was a suicide bombing carried out by a woman on February 13 among a crowd of mostly women and children on the way to a religious festival. She killed at least 38 people and wounded at least 50."

That's murder and the person or persons responsible are the terrorists and NOT the US. 

8. March 2009, 21:33:00
Papa Zoom 
Subject: Re: And BTW Usurper
The Usurper:First of all, your 750,000 figure is extremely inflated.  According to http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ the figure is under 100,000.

Secondly, a large percentage of these deaths are due to suicide bombers, roadside bombs, and other terrorist acts. 

I'm not saying that it's ok to kill any civilian.  And I'm not saying collateral damage "happens."  Even though it does.  But if the US went in to liberate Iraq, then killing any of their citizens, even accidently, is a very unfortunate thing and should be prevented at all costs.  But where ever you get those figures, it's wrong. 

According the Boston Globe the total figure will never accurately be known.  Even if your figure were correct, a majority of deaths come from within. 

The following is an example and can be found on Michael Moore's website: "The deadliest single incident in February was a suicide bombing carried out by a woman on February 13 among a crowd of mostly women and children on the way to a religious festival. She killed at least 38 people and wounded at least 50."

That's murder and the person or persons responsible are the terrorists and NOT the US. 

Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top