Accept it: Terrorists Will Strike Again.

They believe the US is a terrorist state.

The FBI defines terrorism as:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Tico, I don't claim that the US is a 'terrorist nation' at all, for two reasons:

1, We stand to gain nothing from sowing terror - it's a tactic that one uses when one doesn't have actual military might; and,
2, if we decided to engage in terrorism, there would be a lot more dead civilians.

The truth is that we are a careless nation, when it comes to the lives of innocents (who are in the way of our dubious strategic goals). Intentions differ, but the end result is similar.

Law enforcement types tend to be trained to shoot at center mass in order to kill, not stop.

Ticomaya wrote:

Law enforcement types tend to be trained to shoot at center mass in order to kill, not stop.

Law enforcement is trained to shoot at center mass to STOP, not kill. The center mass is the biggest target and that is why they are trained to shoot there. Don't want people getting the wrong idea.

Quote:

So, just to be really clear, verify to me that you are saying that a country which tries to spare non-combatants in combat zones, but occasionally kills them either because combat cannot be that precise or because one of their people goes nuts, is morally equivalent to a country or group that tries to kill a lot of civilians as its standard method of attack.

Ever hear the phrase 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions?'

Intent doesn't matter as much as actions. If you are continually killing civilians - which we have been, while prosecuting the so-called 'war on terror' in Iraq and the ME - then you are engaging in actions which are wrong. Period. This isn't some gray area, Brandon.

You are using the narrowest lens possible in order to avoid responsibility for the killings that WE have done, the murders that the US has engaged in, in the name of achieving our goals.

Tico, I don't claim that the US is a 'terrorist nation' at all, for two reasons:

1, We stand to gain nothing from sowing terror - it's a tactic that one uses when one doesn't have actual military might; and,
2, if we decided to engage in terrorism, there would be a lot more dead civilians.

The truth is that we are a careless nation, when it comes to the lives of innocents (who are in the way of our dubious strategic goals). Intentions differ, but the end result is similar.

Cycloptichorn

So, just to be really clear, verify to me that you are saying that a country which tries to spare non-combatants in combat zones, but occasionally kills them either because combat cannot be that precise or because one of their people goes nuts, is morally equivalent to a country or group that tries to kill a lot of civilians as its standard method of attack.

So, just to be really clear (but mostly wordy), verify to me that you are saying that a country which tries (but fails terribly) to spare non-combatants in combat zones (which can mean anything in a country we are war with), but occasionally (okay, so maybe frequently) kills them either because combat cannot be that precise (but we pull the trigger anyways) or because one (okay, maybe more than one...) of their people goes nuts, is morally equivalent to a country (we're fighting AGAINST Iraq and Afghanistan right?) or group (that is in no way isolated in any one country) that tries to kill a lot of civilians (but despite their efforts still can't manage to keep up with our our numbers) as its standard method of attack.

Brandon9000 wrote:

So, just to be really clear, verify to me that you are saying that a country which tries to spare non-combatants in combat zones, but occasionally kills them either because combat cannot be that precise or because one of their people goes nuts, is morally equivalent to a country or group that tries to kill a lot of civilians as its standard method of attack.

How about...

Brandon9000 (unabridged) wrote:

So, just to be really clear (but mostly wordy), verify to me that you are saying that a country which tries (but fails terribly) to spare non-combatants in combat zones (which can mean anything in a country we are war with), but occasionally (okay, so maybe frequently) kills them either because combat cannot be that precise (but we pull the trigger anyways) or because one (okay, maybe more than one...) of their people goes nuts, is morally equivalent to a country (we're fighting AGAINST Iraq and Afghanistan right?) or group (that is in no way isolated in any one country) that tries to kill a lot of civilians (but despite their efforts still can't manage to keep up with our our numbers) as its standard method of attack.

The moral equivalency may not be the same, but the responsibility and accountability is. Simply put, if you gamble prepare to lose. Taking chances and being careless to kill a single target but killing several innocent non-combatants is NOT acceptable.

T
K
O

In addition to this statement, I'd be grateful if you'd answer the question asked.

So, just to be really clear, verify to me that you are saying that a country which tries to spare non-combatants in combat zones, but occasionally kills them either because combat cannot be that precise or because one of their people goes nuts, is morally equivalent to a country or group that tries to kill a lot of civilians as its standard method of attack.

In every modern war, non-combatants have been killed accidentally. I presume, though, that you're not saying that all wars past, present, and future are morally unacceptable. To say that a country which tries hard to spare civilians in the area is morally equivalent to people who aim at civilians as the primary, intended target is simply ridiculous. We should take greater and greater pains to spare non-combatants, but there is no prospect whatever of eliminating totally the deaths of non-combatants in war.

..If we kill 400 people by accident - because they got in our way while we were trying to kill other people - we are just as guilty as those who killed those people on purpose. ...
Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

..If we kill 400 people by accident - because they got in our way while we were trying to kill other people - we are just as guilty as those who killed those people on purpose. ...
Cycloptichorn

According to this logic which you enunciate above, every government which has participated in war, including the Founding Fathers in the Revolutionary War, is equally as guilty as someone who straps a nail bomb to his waist and detonates himself in a marketplace trying to take down as many civilians as possible. I think I'll leave this one at a simple, "I don't agree."

Yes, that's the truth. We have blood on our hands. You may want to pretend that we don't, but we do.

... But we shouldn't do what you are doing - pretending that we are justified. We are not justified when innocents die, ever.

You have created false moral distinctions based upon the presumption that we are engaging in necessary wars; that we were FORCED to take actions which lead to the deaths of innocent. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

..If we kill 400 people by accident - because they got in our way while we were trying to kill other people - we are just as guilty as those who killed those people on purpose. ...
Cycloptichorn

According to this logic which you enunciate above, every government which has participated in war, including the Founding Fathers in the Revolutionary War, is equally as guilty as someone who straps a nail bomb to his waist and detonates himself in a marketplace trying to take down as many civilians as possible. I think I'll leave this one at a simple, "I don't agree."

Yes, that's the truth. We have blood on our hands. You may want to pretend that we don't, but we do.

You ought to come to terms with this, Brandon. Occasionally governments have to do bad things and everyone understands that. But we shouldn't do what you are doing - pretending that we are justified. We are not justified when innocents die, ever.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

Yes, that's the truth. We have blood on our hands. You may want to pretend that we don't, but we do.

... But we shouldn't do what you are doing - pretending that we are justified. We are not justified when innocents die, ever.

Another excellent example is Cuba. The USA has been actively engaging in terrorist actions against Cuba since 1959. Fifty one years of terrorism against a poor little Caribbean country.

And Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Chile, ...

The VOA is by definition a terrorist organization.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have created false moral distinctions based upon the presumption that we are engaging in necessary wars; that we were FORCED to take actions which lead to the deaths of innocent. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Exactly.

I accidentally shot a man when I was trying to kill Hitler.

versus...

I accidentally shot a man when I was trying to catch a unicorn (or find an invisible WMD).

T
K
O

Okay, according to you all war is immoral. So be it. I disagree.

Diest TKO wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have created false moral distinctions based upon the presumption that we are engaging in necessary wars; that we were FORCED to take actions which lead to the deaths of innocent. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Exactly.

I accidentally shot a man when I was trying to kill Hitler.

versus...

I accidentally shot a man when I was trying to catch a unicorn (or find an invisible WMD).

T
K
O

Your argument is unclear. Are you saying that killing a non-combatant, despite trying to spare him, is morally equivalent to aiming at him on purpose in any war or just in "unjust" wars?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You have created false moral distinctions based upon the presumption that we are engaging in necessary wars; that we were FORCED to take actions which lead to the deaths of innocent. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Exactly.

I accidentally shot a man when I was trying to kill Hitler.

versus...

I accidentally shot a man when I was trying to catch a unicorn (or find an invisible WMD).

T
K
O

Your argument is unclear. Are you saying that killing a non-combatant, despite trying to spare him, is morally equivalent to aiming at him on purpose in any war or just in "unjust" wars?

If in WW2, I accidentally shoot a French woman in a battle to liberate the French, I'm going to feel like ****.

If in Iraq, I accidentally shoot a Iraqi woman in a battle to find secure a palace we think but ultimately doesn't have WMDs, I'm going to REALLY feel like ****....
But what you're saying here is a far cry from saying that the US has done something wrong or that the inevitable civilian losses in wars makes us equivalent to terrorists who aim specifically at civilians.

Furthermore, if you had justification in believing that the probability of WMDs or WMD development programs being present combined with the consequences if they were present was serious, then you should feel equally or almost equally bad about accidentally killing the Iraqi and French civilian.