Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

USA mass murders?!


  • Please log in to reply
177 replies to this topic

#106    Spark Plug

Spark Plug

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 June 2011 - 02:54 PM

View Postdekker87, on 02 June 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

:lol:

errmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!

are you quoting the wrong poster here?

because you're prety much agreeing with me...

Oh sorry on that one.

I admit I dont like reading pages of comments and tend to skip a few.


#107    dekker87

dekker87

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:england

Posted 02 June 2011 - 03:07 PM

Quote

[Actually, as the case with Nicaragua shows, it actually is.

it shows nothing of the sort!

Quote

Anyone with even the slightest sense of morality knows that, essentially, they are the same.

anyone with any common sense and a desire for objective truth regardless of what that amounts to can see that they are not anywhere near the same.

Quote

And I edited my last post to add the part about 50% of entire cities in NK destroyed.

and this was 'mass murder' rather than wartime actions?

Quote

Which, to be honest, isn't much different from entire Vietnamese villages being wiped out.

do you mean by the NVA, the VC or the US?

Quote

Or Fallujah for that matter.

oh right!! fallujah is now mass killing too!!

please post some links to back these entirely new accusations up!

do you hold the US responsible for Sabra and Chatila too? after all they supplied the IDF...who supported the Phalangists....who killed the families of the PLO fighters....


#108    rashore

rashore

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,276 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 02 June 2011 - 03:10 PM

So Dekker...

Is it safe to assume you believe that the US has committed no mass murders since 1950?

Your ad hominem connotes your sciolism. Now that is some funny commentary.

#109    Spark Plug

Spark Plug

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Joined:01 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 June 2011 - 03:17 PM

View Postrashore, on 02 June 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:

So Dekker...

Is it safe to assume you believe that the US has committed no mass murders since 1950?

The correct answer to this should be that the US hasnt fought another nation since 1950 that hasnt adopted guerilla warfare or human shield tactics


#110    dekker87

dekker87

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:england

Posted 02 June 2011 - 03:29 PM

View Postrashore, on 02 June 2011 - 03:10 PM, said:

So Dekker...

Is it safe to assume you believe that the US has committed no mass murders since 1950?

with the possible exception of the cambodian bombin campaign (see that expandmymind - that's called intellectual honesty) then yes you would be correct in your assumption.


#111    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,778 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 02 June 2011 - 03:34 PM

Quote

it shows nothing of the sort!

Actually, it does.

Quote

anyone with any common sense and a desire for objective truth regardless of what that amounts to can see that they are not anywhere near the same.

They are the same. Which was agreed upon by the vast majority of the ENTIRE WORLD (actually the entire World, when we consider that "abstaining" in the UN is essentially not making a decision due to the fact your pal is involved).

Quote

and this was 'mass murder' rather than wartime actions?

It matters not whether or not it happened in wartime. Again, when the British or Germans bombed cities it was mass murder. There is a general concensus over this. And even they rarely (if ever) destroyed 50% of entire cities. This is mass murder by definition.

Quote

do you mean by the NVA, the VC or the US?

The discussion is about the U.S.

Quote

oh right!! fallujah is now mass killing too!!

It will be. This is what happens when you use depleted uranium. Very similar to the tens of thousands who died as a result of the U.S. bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan in that the deaths aren't realised straight away.

Then there was this incident http://en.wikipedia....s_of_April_2003 which is still up for debate.

Quote

do you hold the US responsible for Sabra and Chatila too? after all they supplied the IDF...who supported the Phalangists....who killed the families of the PLO fighters....

This is entirely different. The U.S. didn't prop up, install, and encourage Israel to do any of this (which they did in Nicaragua - and elsewehere - when their objective was to suppress popular social uprisings). But, as I've told you before, I do believe the U.S. facilitates the acts of Israel by supplying it with the arms and veto needed to continue with the suppression of the indigenous population. But that is for another forum.

Edited by expandmymind, 02 June 2011 - 03:41 PM.


#112    rashore

rashore

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,276 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 02 June 2011 - 03:38 PM

View Postdekker87, on 02 June 2011 - 03:29 PM, said:

with the possible exception of the cambodian bombin campaign (see that expandmymind - that's called intellectual honesty) then yes you would be correct in your assumption.


Hey, don't forget you said Detroit 67 counted too  ;)

Thank you for your honesty Dekker. You have an interesting perspective.

Your ad hominem connotes your sciolism. Now that is some funny commentary.

#113    dekker87

dekker87

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:england

Posted 02 June 2011 - 03:53 PM

@ expandmymind.

right you're simply not going to accept that the meaning of the phrase 'the us has been committing mass killings' is not the same thing as the us supplying various countries with arms etc no matter how many people try to highlight the difference between....you won't accept because you're either not being honest...or you simply don't get it...which i find hard to believe as you're not stupid...simply uninformed and a little brainwashed.

so let's try this instead:

do you see any difference between terrorists flying a plane into a non-military target such as the twin towers killing 4000 people and the USA bombing legitimate military targets and killing 4000 civilians in the process (not that that has happened but humour me eh)???

also i assume that as you believe the USA guilty of 'decades' of mass killings then if some battalion of US Marines were ordered to go on a mission to wipe out thousands of taliban 'supporting' villages (men, women and children a la my lai) in afghanistan you would not be in the least bit shocked? that would be exactly the behaviour you would expect?


#114    dekker87

dekker87

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:england

Posted 02 June 2011 - 03:56 PM

View Postrashore, on 02 June 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

Hey, don't forget you said Detroit 67 counted too  ;)

Thank you for your honesty Dekker.

thank you rashore...

Quote

You have an interesting perspective.

one forged from arguin with EVERYONE on ALL sides....my avatar says it all....objective truth is important to me....i've put my opinions on hold because after several years of 'debate' i realised that 90% of people are arguin from a flawed perspective that depends on half-truths and exagerrations...such as the us have been 'mass killing' for 'decades' etc.

note that i'm not saying the US actions were moral or laudable....i'm just arguin with the (erroneous) description of their actions as 'mass killings'.


#115    ExpandMyMind

ExpandMyMind

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,778 posts
  • Joined:23 Jan 2009

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:06 PM

Quote

right you're simply not going to accept that the meaning of the phrase 'the us has been committing mass killings' is not the same thing as the us supplying various countries with arms etc no matter how many people try to highlight the difference between

Dekker there is precedent in international law that shows us that they are essentially the same. Forget the morality of the question, the International Court has ruled on this, creating a precedent.

You state that I am not being honest, yet you are claiming that the attacks on Vietnamese villages or the attacks on Korean cities do not constitute mass murder. I have already shown the falacy of this when I referenced the existing international law on the protection of civilians (during war time no less) or the case of British and German bombing campaigns.

Quote

do you see any difference between terrorists flying a plane into a non-military target such as the twin towers killing 4000 people and the USA bombing legitimate military targets and killing 4000 civilians in the process

Of course there are differences, but certainly not to the extent that you imply. Besides, the attack on the U.S. centre for finance (the World Trade), could be (from a skewed point of view) considered an attack on the U.S. financial system by those responsible, not simply an attack on civilians - thereby legitimising it in their eyes. When the U.S. goes to war (or any country) it isn't just "military" targets that are attacked - financial centres and the like would be right up there also, for if you hit a country's pocket... well.

All war crimes, of course. And if we then apply your logic (as you seem to be supporting anything that the military CLAIMS is a legitimate target), you almost seem to claim that the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target and that the casualties were merely a by product.

The point remains, that if there are thought to be civilians, then in the eyes of internatiopnal law (and in my eyes) any attack contitutes a war crime.

Edited by expandmymind, 02 June 2011 - 04:23 PM.


#116    rashore

rashore

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,276 posts
  • Joined:26 Feb 2010
  • Gender:Female

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:25 PM

Wasn't there a CIA office in the WTC cluster somewhere? Could that then qualify as a military target? If so, does that then make it collateral damage instead of mass murder? Or does it still count as mass murder because the terrorists were not working on the direct orders of an accepted government?

What would the ratio of military to civilian occupation of an area have to be to tip the scales from collateral damage or oops, that don't count to the side of yep, that qualifies as mass murder?

That sort of seems to be a problem, what's considered for the term mass murder rather than maybe the term heaps o unnecessary death.

Your ad hominem connotes your sciolism. Now that is some funny commentary.

#117    Travelling Man

Travelling Man

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,200 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • And you are asking... Why?

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:31 PM

I'm not sure if it's been brought up (and "I'm right and you're wrong" posts without supporing cites are too tedious to read), but what of My Lai?

Are we including mistakes in here, as in accidental homicide? There are errant munitions used all the time, and in every military engagement there are, "Oopsies."

Superior firepower will win over superior numbers - every time!  G.A. Custer
Superior numbers will win over superior firepower - every time!  S. Bull

My credentials

#118    dekker87

dekker87

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:england

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:36 PM

View Postrashore, on 02 June 2011 - 04:25 PM, said:

Wasn't there a CIA office in the WTC cluster somewhere? Could that then qualify as a military target? If so, does that then make it collateral damage instead of mass murder? Or does it still count as mass murder because the terrorists were not working on the direct orders of an accepted government?

What would the ratio of military to civilian occupation of an area have to be to tip the scales from collateral damage or oops, that don't count to the side of yep, that qualifies as mass murder?

That sort of seems to be a problem, what's considered for the term mass murder rather than maybe the term heaps o unnecessary death.

MOTIVE is the key.

If you're tryin to hit military targets and civilians get killed that's colllateral damage.

if you're tryin to kill civilians and achieve that then that's mass murder.


#119    dekker87

dekker87

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:england

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:37 PM

View PostTravelling Man, on 02 June 2011 - 04:31 PM, said:

I'm not sure if it's been brought up (and "I'm right and you're wrong" posts without supporing cites are too tedious to read), but what of My Lai?

Are we including mistakes in here, as in accidental homicide? There are errant munitions used all the time, and in every military engagement there are, "Oopsies."

My Lai has been mentioned.

you'll have to read the posts to find out what was said.


#120    dekker87

dekker87

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Joined:08 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:england

Posted 02 June 2011 - 04:45 PM

Quote

Dekker there is precedent in international law that shows us that they are essentially the same. Forget the morality of the question, the International Court has ruled on this, creating a precedent.

post a link then!

it's no good to say something of the sort with no back up.

Quote

You state that I am not being honest,

you're not being honest in that your original position has not been as easy to prove as you thought and has in fact nearly been totally disproven.

you're not being honest by claiming the us committed mass murders for decades and then point to other countries actually commmitting the murders with US support...ie NOT the us comitting mass killings...and you refuse to accept that point.

Quote

yet you are claiming that the attacks on Vietnamese villages or the attacks on Korean cities do not constitute mass murder.

people get killed in wartime...and the fog of war makes it difficult to corroborate such things...but if by vietnam your referring to my lai then let me refer you to the court martials and the prison sentences that followed for the US servicement involved...let me also point you to the actions of the many US troops at My Lai who prevented even more war crimes by their fellow troops.

Quote

Of course there are differences, but certainly not to the extent that you imply.

but you admit there are differences!

so if the twin towers attacks are mass murder how do you refer to the (rhetorical) us attack that kills 4000 by accident?

Quote

Besides, the attack on the U.S. centre for finance (the World Trade), could be (from a skewed point of view) considered an attack on the U.S. financial system by those responsible, not simply an attack on civilians - thereby legitimising it in their eyes. When the U.S. goes to war (or any country) it isn't just "military" targets that are attacked - financial centres and the like would be right up there also, for if you hit a country's pocket... well.

All war crimes, of course. And if we then apply your logic (as you seem to be supporting anything that the military CLAIMS is a legitimate target), you almost seem to claim that the World Trade Centre was a legitimate target and that the casualties were merely a by product.

the WTC was not the centre of US finance...that would be Wall St.

Quote

The point remains, that if there are thought to be civilians, then in the eyes of internatiopnal law (and in my eyes) any attack contitutes a war crime.

and if they are not being attacked directly but die as a consequence of actions aimed at legitimate targets??

then what?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users