Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
dekker87

USA mass murders?!

178 posts in this topic

then offer us us your own classification that counts as 'the us committing mass killings' then..

you still claim that to be the case by the way?

you must be doubting yourself by now....

When it comes to war there is a grey area.

For example if you're a solider in Afganistan how do you react when Taliban troops are getting their wives and children to throw the grenades at you? What do you do if instead of openly fighting you on the battlefield the Taliban dresses as civilians and takes up residence in a town?

If you start shooting the women, children and residents your enemy distorts it and says you're targetting civilians.

Dont be so naive Mr Conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

i'm finding it pretty difficult to understand why you think the authorities would be interested in me...

odd.

I dont know about the US but in the UK and EU everyones emails and text messages are stored for 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And just to be clear Dekker, you don't feel that the U.S. directing, training, arming, funding and supporting the terrorist dictators in, say, South America, is the U.S. committing murder?

:lol:

no!!! because it isn't!!

the us actions may be immoral and 'wrong' but they aren't committing mass murder themselves.

This is quite silly, when we consider that most of the time the reason that the U.S. has created and propped up these men and groups was to quell popular social uprisings - there is no other way to do this other than to use excessive force, i.e. murder. Not only murder, but extreme torture also. All of which the U.S. was fully aware of.

they created and propped up no-one....you seem to see ANY us involvement as meaning the US in in charge - a very naive and dare i say childish and simplistic view of the world.

This has been laid out in the International Court. After the case with Nicaragua the U.S. was found to be complicent in its actions:

[The Court]Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#Judgment

This means that the attacks, although carried out by proxy, were an attack by the U.S., on Nicaragua. This is precedent in law.

What this basically means is that the U.S, any time it has acted in a manner similar to the case of Nicaragua, is in large part responsible for the actions carried out.

what it doesnt mean is that the US carried out mass murder!!

:lol:

Especially when (in reference to the tens of thousands who were killed by the U.S. backed forces), to quote Noam Chomsky:

The National Guard had always been remarkably brutal and sadistic. By June 1979, it was carrying out massive atrocities in the war against the Sandinistas, bombing residential neighborhoods in Managua, killing tens of thousands of people. At that point, the US ambassador sent a cable to the White House saying it would be "ill-advised" to tell the Guard to call off the bombing, because that might interfere with the policy of keeping them in power and the Sandinistas out.

The U.S. knew of, and obviously had the ability to stop such attacks (which is paramount across the Globe).

noam chomsky is a idiot but i digress....so what you're NOW saying is that because the US could have stopped the attacks and didnt that means it carried out the attacks!?!?

:wacko:

what!?!?

Korean War Panel Finds U.S. Attacks on Civilians

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/world/asia/10comission.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

The bold is nothing more than the NYT's opinion. But you get the jist.

were these attacks by the US or by rogue servicemen who went a bit mental under wartime conditions?

were these attacks official US policy?

mate - you're really struggling now.....be honest with yourself...be intellectually honest with yourself...and admit that the US has not 'been commiting mass murder for decades' and that 'a quick look at history' actually proves otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to war there is a grey area.

For example if you're a solider in Afganistan how do you react when Taliban troops are getting their wives and children to throw the grenades at you? What do you do if instead of openly fighting you on the battlefield the Taliban dresses as civilians and takes up residence in a town?

If you start shooting the women, children and residents your enemy distorts it and says you're targetting civilians.

Dont be so naive Mr Conspiracy.

:lol:

errmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!

are you quoting the wrong poster here?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

no!!! because it isn't!!

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

what you're NOW saying is that because the US could have stopped the attacks and didnt that means it carried out the attacks

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

And I edited my last post to add the part about 50% of entire cities in NK destroyed. Which, to be honest, isn't much different from entire Vietnamese villages being wiped out. Or Fallujah for that matter.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

: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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Actually, as the case with Nicaragua shows, it actually is.

it shows nothing of the sort!

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.

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?

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?

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Dekker...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

it shows nothing of the sort!

Actually, it does.

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).

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.

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

The discussion is about the U.S.

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.org/wiki/Fallujah_killings_of_April_2003 which is still up for debate.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ 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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Thank you for your honesty Dekker.

thank you rashore...

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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."

Apparently oopsies don't count. It's murder done upon civilians by direct order of the US government. The Cambodia bombings and the Detroit 67 riot are currently the only two acceptable examples of US committing mass murder at this point in the thread. Vietnam and Korea have been ruled out as mass murder, and fall under a different heaps o dead term. US support or sanction of others doing the mass murders don't count either. Stuff done during wartime doesn't count either.

Edit: spelling error

Edited by rashore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently oopsies don't count. It's murder done upon civilians by direct order of the US government. The Cambodia bombings and the Detroit 67 riot are currently the only two acceptable examples of US committing mass murder at this point in the thread. Vietnam and Korea have been ruled out as mass murder, and fall under a different heaps o dead term. US support or sanction of others doing the mass murders don't count either. Stuff done during wartime doesn't count either.

Edit: spelling error

Howcome?

Personally I believe this thread is getting tedious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Howcome?

Personally I believe this thread is getting tedious

If the US murders people you lot wouldnt be here.

The slightest hint that you were onto them and you'd vanish.

Get a grip guys and gals.

Edited by Spark Plug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howcome?

Personally I believe this thread is getting tedious

I dunno how come. Seems to be the parameters of this thread though. Ask Dekker, he's the one who started this thread based off the comments two people were making in another thread(s).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How are Vietnam and Korea "ruled out"? Just because there is a war, this does not mean that when civilians are killed that it can not then poossibly be mass murder.

On NK and Vietnam.

The centrality of the wholesale killing of noncombatants through the myriad uses of air power runs like a red line from the bombings of 1944-45 through the Korean and Indochinese wars to the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq wars. In the course of six decades since the firebombing and atomic bombing of Japan, while important continuities are observable, such as the firebombing and napalming of cities, new, more powerful and versatile aircraft and weapons would be deployed in the course of successive American wars fought predominantly in Asia.

General Curtis LeMay, the primary architect of the firebombing and atomic bombing strategy applied to Japan in 1945 played a comparable role in Korea and Vietnam. Never one to pull punches, or to minimize the claimed impact of bombing, LeMay recalled of Korea:

We slipped a note kind of under the door into the Pentagon and said, “Look, let us go up there…and burn down five of the biggest towns in North Korea – and they’re not very big – and that ought to stop it.” Well, the answer to that was four or five screams – “You’ll kill a lot of non-combatants,” and “It’s too horrible.” Yet over a period three years or so…we burned down every town in North Korea and South Korea, too… Now, over a period of three years this is palatable, but to kill a few people to stop this from happening – a lot of people can’t stomach it.” [47]

In the course of three years, US/UN forces in Korea flew 1,040,708 sorties and dropped 386,037 tons of bombs and 32,357 tons of napalm. Counting all types of air borne ordnance, including rockets and machine-gun ammunition, the total tonnage comes to 698,000 tons. Marilyn Young estimates the death toll in Korea, most of it noncombatants, at two to four million, and in the South alone, more than five million people had been displaced, according to UN estimates. [48]

One striking feature of these wars has been the extension of bombing from a predominantly urban phenomenon to the uses of airpower directed against rural areas of Korea and Vietnam, leading the United States to breach another of international principles that had sought to curtail indiscriminate attacks on noncombatants. Beginning in Korea, US bombing was extended from cities to the countryside with devastating effects. In what Bruce Cumings has called the “final act of this barbaric air war,” in spring 1953 North Korea’s main irrigation dams were destroyed shortly after the rice had been transplanted. [49]

Here we consider one particularly important element of American bombing of Vietnam. Franklin Roosevelt, in 1943 issued a statement that long stood as the clearest expression of US policy on the use of chemical and biological weapons. In response to reports of Axis plans to use poison gases, Roosevelt warned that “use of such weapons has been outlawed by the general opinion of civilized mankind. This country has not used them, and I hope that we never will be compelled to use them. I state categorically that we shall under no circumstances resort to the use of such weapons unless they are first used by our enemies.” [50] This principle, incorporated in US Army Field Manual 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, issued in 1954, affirmed the principle of no first use of gas warfare and bacteriological warfare. By 1956, that provision had disappeared, replaced by the assertion that the US was party to no treaty in force “that prohibits or restricts the use in warfare of toxic or nontoxic gases, or smoke or incendiary materials or of bacteriological warfare.” US CBW research and procurement efforts, that began in the early 1950s and culminated in the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s, resulted in the use of chemical and biological weapons both against Vietnamese forces and nature, specifically extending from the destruction of forest cover to the destruction of crops. As Seymour Hersh documents, the US CBW program in Vietnam “gradually escalated from the use of leaf-killing defoliants to rice-killing herbicides and nausea-producing gases.” [51] How widespread were US gas attacks in Vietnam? A 1967 Japanese study of US anticrop and defoliation attacks prepared by the head of the Agronomy Section of the Japan Science Council concluded that more than 3.8 million acres of arable land in South Vietnam was ruined and more than 1,000 peasants and 13,000 livestock were killed. [52] In the face of US military claims that the gases were benign, Dr. Pham Duc Nam told Japanese investigators that a three-day attack near Da Nang from February 25 to 27, 1966 had poisoned both livestock and people, some of whom died. “Pregnant women gave birth to still-born or premature children. Most of the affected cattle died from serious diarrhea, and river fish floated on the surface of the water belly up, soon after the chemicals were spread.” [53]

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Mark-Selden/2414

Let's just have a look again at what the general wrote:

We slipped a note kind of under the door into the Pentagon and said, “Look, let us go up there…and burn down five of the biggest towns in North Korea – and they’re not very big – and that ought to stop it.” Well, the answer to that was four or five screams – “You’ll kill a lot of non-combatants,” and “It’s too horrible.” Yet over a period three years or so…we burned down every town in North Korea and South Korea, too… Now, over a period of three years this is palatable, but to kill a few people to stop this from happening – a lot of people can’t stomach it.” [47]

A U.S. general openly admitting the act of killing masses of civilians. A general who served in Vietnam also it should be added.

And this is before we go on to mention the dams that were attacked towards the end of the war - which is a war crime. After the largest dam was attacked it flooded for a distance of 27 miles, wiping out many villages. How is this not mass murder? It certainly wasn't an accepted act of war, that's for sure.

Edited by expandmymind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.