USA mass murders?!

[dekker87]

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.

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.

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

but not mass murder.

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.

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.

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

for what?? please expand on that...

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.

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]

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]

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 June 1, 2011 by expandmymind

[ExpandMyMind]

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 June 1, 2011 by expandmymind

[ali smack]

I believe in the 1980s The US and for that matter British Governments did infact sell weapons to Saddam Hussein which he used to torture and kill his own people.This is most unaceptable.

I sugest the OP look at some of the articles that I posted on this thread regarding the supporting of dictators and killings contributed by the US.

[dekker87]

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?"

what's hilarious is that you said the US has committed mass murder and then start posting statistics about wars that the US military had no involvement in!!

serious man...what planet are you on?

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!

the only qualifier is that the US themselves actually carried out the killings.

is that difficult for you to get your head round?

East Timor is most certainly down to the U.S., as I have read in a book on the subject.

i've heard it all now!! your proof is 'i've read a book on the subject'!!!

The U.S. supplied the arms and quelled diplomatic opposition which allowed those atrocities to take place

which isn't remotely the same as the US carrying out mass killings themselves is it....

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.

i didnt say they were totally blameless...i'm saying that the US didnt carry out the murders themselves.

i'll keep saying that til you get your head round it.

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.

utter nonsense.

And also adds that sweeping statement and apologetic notion that it was OK because "they may have been anti-communist. "

i didnt say it was okay..i explained that's why the US suported them.

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.

wtf are you talkin about!?!?

Nearly eight thousand soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines had participated in URGENT FURY along with 353 Caribbean allies of the CPF. U.S. forces had sustained 19 killed and 116 wounded; Cuban forces sustained 25 killed, 59 wounded and 638 combatants captured. Grenadian forces casualties were 45 killed and 358 wounded; at least 24 civilians were killed.[15]

stop lying and making stuff up.

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

more total bs!!!

The missiles were launched from US warships in the Red Sea. Several hit the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which the United States claimed was helping Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the embassy attacks, build chemical weapons. One man was killed and ten were wounded in Sudan by the strike

i don't think i've ever seen anyone mug themselves off on a forum to such a deep degree before...that 10's of 1000's figure you're referring to has it's genesis in a newspaper article written by an anti-american german politician...there is no mention of this anywhere else.

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

ermmmm...a war!?!?

how many americans died during the same conflict?

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...

i think you'll find it's yourself who is lookin a bit stupid - 10's of 1000's dead in sudan!?! 1000's killed in grenada!?!?

mate you're either making stuff up from scratch or using some very very questionable sources for this information.

[Spark Plug]

I believe in the 1980s The US and for that matter British Governments did infact sell weapons to Saddam Hussein which he used to torture and kill his own people.This is most unaceptable.

I sugest the OP look at some of the articles that I posted on this thread regarding the supporting of dictators and killings contributed by the US.

We sold him the WMDs which is why we know he had them.

We gave them to him with the means to make more so he could win the Iranian war. We also sold them plans for a super artillery gun which we stole from WW2 Germany which was the V3 wonder weapon.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Spark Plug

[dekker87]

You have been given plenty of examples.

which have been refuted. president whoever of whereversville murdering civilians using american supplied weaponry is NOT the us committing mass murder.

What do you think dropping napalm after napalm in Vietnam was?

a bombing campiagn designed to prevent the vietcong from digging in??

what do you think it was? a deliberate act designed to kill civilians?

You think you can accidentally kill millions of civilians?

where are these millions of civilians the USA has killed then?

[rashore]

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'.

ok...

This is a mass killing?

Does this count?

[dekker87]

We sold him the WMDs which is why we know he had them.

We gave them to him with the means to make more so he could win the Iranian war. We also sold them plans for a super artillery gun which we stole from WW2 Germany which was the V3 wonder weapon.

we didnt sell him WMD...that's an old fallacy...the french sold him the precursors not ourselves or the usa.

and the supergun would never have worked...that was an espionage operation.

ok...

This is a mass killing?

Does this count?

detroit counts.

the first one doesn't...they weren't killing out of any official policy.

[dekker87]

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.

you what?!?

the us actions in cambodia and vietnam in no way constitute genocide. there was no policy to kill any particular group of anyone....and again the US did not invade nicaragua...no US military forces served there.

[ExpandMyMind]

which have been refuted. president whoever of whereversville murdering civilians using american supplied weaponry is NOT the us committing mass murder.

This is getting tedious. You have refuted nothing as anyone with eyes can read.

a bombing campiagn designed to prevent the vietcong from digging in??

what do you think it was? a deliberate act designed to kill civilians?

I can't believe you're even trying to debate this. I mean it is a matter of public record.

where are these millions of civilians the USA has killed then?

Eh.. dead..

And that was a reference to Vietnam only.

which have been refuted. president whoever of whereversville murdering civilians using american supplied weaponry is NOT the us committing mass murder.

No, it is U.S. sanctioned and supported murder.

Noam Chomsky: El Salvador, Oscar Romero, who was assassinated

in 1980.l Romero was assassinated only a few days

after he had written a letter to President Jimmy Carter

pleading with him not to send aid to the military junta in

El Salvador, which would be used to crush people struggling

for their elementary human rights

This is sanctioning murder. No two ways about it. Without such arms, thousands of innocent civilians would have been spared. And on and on it goes. This is how the U.S. generally operates.

what's hilarious is that you said the US has committed mass murder and then start posting statistics about wars that the US military had no involvement in!!

What exactly are you talking about? I have given many examples and then went on to further explain how the U.S. facilitates and sanctions mass murders, which is essentially just as bad.

serious man...what planet are you on?

Definitely a different one from you it seems...

the only qualifier is that the US themselves actually carried out the killings.

Need I go back to my original post in this thread? I have provided many examples.

i've heard it all now!! your proof is 'i've read a book on the subject'!!!

/Sigh.

A Quarter Century of U.S. Support for Occupation

East Timor Truth Commission report uses declassified U.S. documents to call for reparations from U.S. for its support of Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor from 1975 until U.N. sponsored vote in 1999

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB174/index.htm

which isn't remotely the same as the US carrying out mass killings themselves is it....

Actually, considering that such acts could not have been carried out without the help of the U.S. (read the above link), it essentially is the same. Especially when the acts are public knowledge hyet the support still continues.

i didnt say they were totally blameless...i'm saying that the US didnt carry out the murders themselves.

How many times must I tell you that I have already provided very legitimate examples. I know you think you have "refuted" the examples, but you have not. Nicaragua, Cambodia/Laos, Vietnam, Sudan, Grenada, and there are loads more.

utter nonsense.

How is it utter nonsense to state that "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."?

No U.S. armd (and training much of the time) = no thousands of dead civilians.

i didnt say it was okay..i explained that's why the US suported them.

So you are now claiming that it was wrong of the U.S. to support, fund, train (much of the time) and arm these brutal regimes? Could this be morals actually creeping into your post? Never...

wtf are you talkin about!?!?

My bad, I simply got my figures/situations mixed up. I definitely did not "make it up".

more total bs!!!

i don't think i've ever seen anyone mug themselves off on a forum to such a deep degree before...that 10's of 1000's figure you're referring to has it's genesis in a newspaper article written by an anti-american german politician...there is no mention of this anywhere else.

Unfortunately the factory was Sudan's primary source of pharmaceuticals, covering the majority of the Sudanese market. Werner Daum (Germany's ambassador to Sudan 1996–2000) wrote an article in which he estimated that the attack "probably led to tens of thousands of deaths" of Sudanese civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_missile_strikes_on_Afghanistan_and_Sudan_%28August_1998%29

That's what happens when you target a place where medicine is created in a Third World Country. Lost of people die as a result.

ermmmm...a war!?!?

Just because it was a war, does not mean that the mass murder of civilians did not happen. This is like claiming allied/German bombing of civilian centres was not mass murder = it was.

Regardless of the mistake I made about Grenada, the U.S. is still, quite clearly, guilty of mass murder, by definition. There is no escaping this fact.

Edited June 1, 2011 by expandmymind

[ExpandMyMind]

you what?!?

the us actions in cambodia and vietnam in no way constitute genocide. there was no policy to kill any particular group of anyone....and again the US did not invade nicaragua...no US military forces served there.

Regardless of whether or not you consider them to be genocide, they are quite clearly and undeniably mass murder. The bombings were indiscriminate.

there was no policy to kill any particular group of anyone

Cambodians.

With Nicaragua, what do troops have to do with anything? Or invasion? When you level a country with a bombing campaign which results in tens of thousands of civilians killed, it is mass murder.

[Spark Plug]

we didnt sell him WMD...that's an old fallacy...the french sold him the precursors not ourselves or the usa.

and the supergun would never have worked...that was an espionage operation.

detroit counts.

the first one doesn't...they weren't killing out of any official policy.

Saddam Hussein got his WMDs from the British and Reagon + Thatcher tried their best to cover it up but theres millions of ex-service men out there that know different.

There was nothing wrong with the supergun

[Corp]

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).

If that was the case half the members of these forums would have disappeared years ago. Heck we have people who supported open rebellion and they're still around.

Four people equal a mass murder? That seems rather...low.

Anyway for the topic has a whole yes the US is guilty of general carelessness in war resulting in high civilian deaths and turning a blind eye to brutal governments because they weren't commies. Though aside from some cases in Vietnam not sure there's much in the way of focused mass murders. Certainly not enough to make the US the most evil thing ever that some members seem to think. Of course that changes if we take the four dead = mass murder theory in which case the majority of the world governments are guilty.

[ExpandMyMind]

If that was the case half the members of these forums would have disappeared years ago. Heck we have people who supported open rebellion and they're still around.

Four people equal a mass murder? That seems rather...low.

Anyway for the topic has a whole yes the US is guilty of general carelessness in war resulting in high civilian deaths and turning a blind eye to brutal governments because they weren't commies. Though aside from some cases in Vietnam not sure there's much in the way of focused mass murders. Certainly not enough to make the US the most evil thing ever that some members seem to think. Of course that changes if we take the four dead = mass murder theory in which case the majority of the world governments are guilty.

Mass murder (in military contexts, sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering a large number of people (four or more), typically at the same time or over a relatively short period of time.[1] According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual or more.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder

FBI definition.

[ali smack]

Saddam Hussein got his WMDs from the British and Reagon + Thatcher tried their best to cover it up but theres millions of ex-service men out there that know different.

There was nothing wrong with the supergun

True.

I've even posted evidence of it on this thread.

[dekker87]

ok...i'm getting a little bored of repeating myself here...

situations where the USA supported those who carried out mass murder does not equal the USA committing mass murder.

situations where the USA provided the arms which were then used in mass murder does not equal the USA committing mass murder.

situations where the USA bombed military targets and civilians were killed during such attacks does not equal the USA committing mass murder.

situations where the USA bombed a target which then subsequently prevented medicines being produced does not equal the USA committing mass murder.

you've been clearly proven to have LIED about grenada and the sudan...your anti-american fanaticism is clouding your judgement to the extent you're making things up.

the ONLY incident you've posted that i may revise my opinion of is the cambodian bombing campaign...everything else that you've posted is utterly groundless.

With Nicaragua, what do troops have to do with anything? Or invasion? When you level a country with a bombing campaign which results in tens of thousands of civilians killed, it is mass murder.

what!?!? are you now claiming that US warplanes attacked nicuragua during the 80's!?!? and killed tens of thousands of people??!

maaan!! what are you smoking up there cos i want some!!

[dekker87]

So you are now claiming that it was wrong of the U.S. to support, fund, train (much of the time) and arm these brutal regimes? Could this be morals actually creeping into your post? Never...

if you slowed down a little and realised who you're arguin with you may realise that i'm not some blind supporter of the USA.

i just don't like bull****.

and sayin the usa has committed mass murders is bs of the highest order.

bs that actually strengthens the case of the rabid right wing in the us because it's bs that is so easily disproved.

[acidhead]

ok...i'm getting a little bored of repeating myself here...

situations where the USA supported those who carried out mass murder does not equal the USA committing mass murder.

Yes it does... in fact it's american foreign policy on the War on Terror.

'you are either with us or with the terrorists' --GW Bush

This same policy has been adopted by the current Obama Democrats Administration.... 'those who harbor terrorists...'

Edited June 1, 2011 by acidhead

[Corp]

Mass murder (in military contexts, sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering a large number of people (four or more), typically at the same time or over a relatively short period of time.[1] According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual or more.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder

FBI definition.

Well going by that then just about every country in the world has committed mass murder.

Though I guess it could be argued that most of the cases were more manslaughter than murder. Really need to work out a firm definition otherwise you'll have people just running around in circles.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Corp

[dekker87]

Mass murder (in military contexts, sometimes interchangeable with "mass destruction") is the act of murdering a large number of people (four or more), typically at the same time or over a relatively short period of time.[1] According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual or more.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder

FBI definition.

not exactly what you meant when you first started saying the US has committed mass murder tho was it.

[FLOMBIE]

I don't think so. Lots, yes, and maybe those countries are slightly in the majority, but not "just about every".

[dekker87]

Yes it does... in fact it's american foreign policy on the War on Terror.

'you are either with us or with the terrorists' --GW Bush

This same policy has been adopted by the current Obama Democrats Administration.... 'those who harbor terrorists...'

expandmymind - altho wrong - is capable of intelligent (ish) debate...he's simply mistaken in a lot of his beliefs...but i'll rectify that for him

you sir are neither capable of intelligent debate nor innocently mistaken...you hate america and the west on some sort of reactionary infantile level and as such i'll ignore your contributions to this thread.

oh and btw - 'acid'head!?!?!

i bet you're a white guy with dreads who speaks in a faux-jamaican accent eh.