177 replies to this topic

[dekker87]

expandmymind, on 01 June 2011 - 02:48 PM, said:

In reference to Cambodia:

Nixon: "I want them to hit everything."

Kissinger to the U.S. military: transmitted the order to the Pentagon to carry out a "massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves."

Which not only is mass murder, but generally considered genocide (hundreds of thousands dead)... Unless you happen to be the U.S. or a lucky ally

no genocide is what happened when the communist khmer rouge took control.

that's the khmer rouge who were, initially, allies of the vietcong and the nva and who were actively involved in the fight against us forces in vietnam and who the US attacked during the bombing campaign known as operation menu.

simple one again - if the cambodians didnt want to be bombed then they should have been aiding the us's enemies during wartime.

that's hardly mass murder - that's warfare.

[me-wonders]

The most obvious is David's compound in Waco, Texas, because this was a war on citizens that could have been avoided.  It was committed by the federal government. Even though the Waco police pleaded that the situation be left in their hands, the feds over ruled the Waco police and came to the compound with weapons of war.  

The US did things that are not acceptable in the Korean war, such as use biological weapons.  The Vietnam war was avoidable and what we did there was intolerable.  Granting arms to mid east countries, brings us to the trouble in the mid east today. The invasion of Iraq was not right.  Entering ready to defend oil wells, but not citizens was not right, even if there anyone believes there was justification for invading Iraq.  I think Bush and Cheney should be on trail for war crimes.  

But why are we even questioning if the USA committed mass murder?  Is there a certain number of people who must be killed for us to use the term mass murder?  On the good side, we are reducing the size of our weapons and using them more precisely.  But maybe we should also talk about loans made to countries, and then forcing the country to sell its food to repay the loan, resulting in people starving?  Is this somehow more okay?  Are there rules to morality that I do not understand?  It is okay to use brute force when__________.

Edited by me-wonders, 01 June 2011 - 03:30 PM.

[Spark Plug]

dekker87, on 01 June 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

regardless of who did the killing to post a phrase such as 'winning' on a topic such as this belies your actual feelings for those who died.

why?

You live in a country where all emails are stored and monitored.

That means if you become a problem they know who to make disappear (if they operate like that).

[dekker87]

okay...everyone's off on a tangent a little.

let's make this clear - i'm talking about extra-judicial killings carried out by US military forces that were ordered by the US high command / government.

[dekker87]

Spark Plug, on 01 June 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:

You live in a country where all emails are stored and monitored.

That means if you become a problem they know who to make disappear (if they operate like that).

believe me mate the posts i've made on this forum will be the least of my worries if it ever goes down like that!

[Spark Plug]

dekker87, on 01 June 2011 - 03:11 PM, said:

believe me mate the posts i've made on this forum will be the least of my worries if it ever goes down like that!

I'd leave this forum people this one is so going to be being watched.

His name will already be on a list somewhere and the minute he becomes a problem he'll simply disappear never to be seen again.

[ExpandMyMind]

This is hilarious. It has now went from "that the USA has committed mass murder in the last 60 years!? " - the act of committing mass murder to:

"sorry did the USA invade?"

So, after I essentially proved the complete ignorance of Dekker's claim that the U.S. hasn't committed mass murder, he now adds an extra qualifier? There had to now be an invasion (of which he goes on to mention Grenada - facepalm). Man, nice one bruvva!

East Timor is most certainly down to the U.S., as I have read in a book on the subject. The U.S. supplied the arms and quelled diplomatic opposition which allowed those atrocities to take place.

He also states that even though the U.S. actively supported, armed, funded and encouraged many of the brutal regimes in South America, that somehow they are void of responsibility. Without the U.S. (CIA) then these acts could not have taken place. these regimes were sanctioned by the U.S. govts of the times. And also adds that sweeping statement and apologetic notion that it was OK because "they may have been anti-communist. "

He also brings up Grenada (bit stupid considering the stance you are taking here, no?) where it is estimated that thousands were killed. This was all because Grenada were going to (oh my God) buy arms from Czechoslovakia.

Sudan = the U.S. bombed Sudan in 1998, where it is estimated that "tens of thousands" were left dead as a result.

And what about vietnam, where millions were left dead? What would you call that?  

Dekker, you literally have not a leg to stand on here. You were proved completely wrong in my first post, yet went on to try to argue your case anyways. A completely futile act...

[ExpandMyMind]

dekker87, on 01 June 2011 - 03:06 PM, said:

no genocide is what happened when the communist khmer rouge took control.

that's the khmer rouge who were, initially, allies of the vietcong and the nva and who were actively involved in the fight against us forces in vietnam and who the US attacked during the bombing campaign known as operation menu.

simple one again - if the cambodians didnt want to be bombed then they should have been aiding the us's enemies during wartime.

that's hardly mass murder - that's warfare.

You may want to have a look at the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter (not to mention the U.S. War Crimes Act of '96). Targetting civilians is not warfare.

You are an horrendous apologist for murder. This is disgusting to watch.

[ExpandMyMind]

ali smack, on 01 June 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:

http://www.hawaii.ed.../SOD.CHAP13.HTM

http://www.projectce...llings-in-iraq/

and here are some articles regarding killings which I believe the O.P. may have been more interested in.

Thanks. You seem to have saved me the time and effort of 'debating' with an extremist apologist.  

[ExpandMyMind]

me-wonders, on 01 June 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:

The most obvious is David's compound in Waco, Texas, because this was a war on citizens that could have been avoided.  It was committed by the federal government. Even though the Waco police pleaded that the situation be left in their hands, the feds over ruled the Waco police and came to the compound with weapons of war.  

The US did things that are not acceptable in the Korean war, such as use biological weapons.  The Vietnam war was avoidable and what we did there was intolerable.  Granting arms to mid east countries, brings us to the trouble in the mid east today. The invasion of Iraq was not right.  Entering ready to defend oil wells, but not citizens was not right, even if there anyone believes there was justification for invading Iraq.  I think Bush and Cheney should be on trail for war crimes.  

But why are we even questioning if the USA committed mass murder?  Is there a certain number of people who must be killed to us the term mass murder? On the good side, we were reducing the size of our weapons and using them more precisely.  But maybe we should also talk about loans made to countries, and then forcing the country to sell its food to repay the loan, resulting in people starving?  Is this somehow more okay?

Yes, four people must be killed for it to be defined as mass murder.

[dekker87]

Quote

The most obvious is David's compound in Waco, Texas, because this was a war on citizens that could have been avoided.  It was committed by the federal government. Even though the Waco police pleaded that the situation be left in their hands, the feds over ruled the Waco police and came to the compound with weapons of war.  

the whackos inside waco fired (and killed) first. it's a little rich to complain when they get some back though i do believe the feds went well over the top here.

Quote

The US did things that are not acceptable in the Korean war, such as use biological weapons.

wartime - but please provide me with a link regarding the use of biological weapons..from a reputable source obviously.

Quote

The Vietnam war was avoidable and what we did there was intolerable.

but not mass murder.

Quote

Granting arms to mid east countries, brings us to the trouble in the mid east today.

no it really doesn't. the arms sold to both egypt and israel has KEPT the peace not caused trouble.

Quote

The invasion of Iraq was not right.  Entering ready to defend oil wells, but not citizens was not right, even if there anyone believes there was justification for invading Iraq.

i agree. but this was not mass murder.

Quote

I think Bush and Cheney should be on trail for war crimes.  

for what?? please expand on that...

Quote

But why are we even questioning if the USA committed mass murder?  Is there a certain number of people who must be killed to us the term mass murder?

no i'm not narrowly defining the terms...i just want examples of when the us has deliberately targetted civilians for the express purpose of killing them.

Quote

But maybe we should also talk about loans made to countries, and then forcing the country to sell its food to repay the loan, resulting in people starving?  Is this somehow more okay?

no it isn't...that's disgusting.

[Spark Plug]

expandmymind, on 01 June 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

Yes, four people must be killed for it to be defined as mass murder.

Do you realise how many people would die if we didnt get oil.

Plus I wouldnt be able to drive my car to work.

[rashore]

So if it's four...

Would something like this count as a mass killing?

[ExpandMyMind]

Quote

no i'm not narrowly defining the terms...i just want examples of when the us has deliberately targetted civilians for the express purpose of killing them.

You have been given plenty of examples. What do you think dropping napalm after napalm in Vietnam was? You think you can accidentally kill millions of civilians?  

What about the Kissinger quote to "hit anything that moves"? Were they ALL sympathisers (which still wouldn't change the fact that mass murder occured)?.

This is like claiming that if someone points a machine gun into a crowd, then turns his head and shuts his eyes and lets rip, that he would somehow then not be a murderer? LOL

You, sir, are a ludicrous one to debate with. No offence, but you are.

Edited by expandmymind, 01 June 2011 - 03:36 PM.

[ExpandMyMind]

rashore, on 01 June 2011 - 03:26 PM, said:

So if it's four...

Would something like this count as a mass killing?

Indeed it would. This is possibly debatable though, up until you realise that 9/10 people killed by the U.S. drones in Afghanistan/Pakistan are actually civilians. This is essentially just as bad as dropping a bomb on a school where you are sure for definite that there are civilians there (and international law defines it as such). The U.S. knows that 9/10 times, it will hit a group of civilians.. yet the bombs keep-a-comin'.

Dekker: "no genocide is what happened when the communist khmer rouge took control.". Indeed you may be correct, but that doesn't mean that I am not. indiscriminate bombing of civilians is quite clearly genocide. Especially when it results in hundreds of thousands dead.

Wiki: Genocide is defined as "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group". I think Cambodia (and Vietnam) qualify. Along with Nicaragua and a few others that you could possibly debate.

Edited by expandmymind, 01 June 2011 - 03:34 PM.