War on France - Page 2

jaguar · 10-08-2002, 02:23 AM

France has stated it supports an attack on Iraq - as long as there is UN backing. Most other nations are saying the same thing, even britan would haver if the US decided to go it alone. I doubt the CIA are involved in this.

As for the blast thing - yes it is. Maybe the French were wise to wait and see rather than jumping to conclusions after all the hot air.

Chefranden · 10-09-2002, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dave
I personally consider terrorism to be the intentional targeting of civilians for the purpose of striking fear into the collective heart of a society.

What? You mean like dropping cluster bombs on Afghan weddings? The fire bombing of Dresden perhaps? Blowing the heads off of 13 year old Shepard boys? Destroying Korean villages with quad 50’s and quad 20mm cannons maybe?

10-09-2002, 11:30 PM

Show me where it was intentional and we'll have something to talk about.

jaguar · 10-09-2002, 11:48 PM

Intentional killing of civvies? Vietnam comes to mind.

Nic Name · 10-10-2002, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Undeterred by U.S. criticism, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Tuesday praised the IDF strike against Hamas that killed 14 Palestinians and wounded more than 100 in the Gaza Strip.

Sharon said there would be more such operations in the future.

The Palestinians said all the dead were civilians, while Israel was equally adamant that most were armed men who died in battle. The army said the operation was meant to put the Islamic militant group on notice that it could no longer feel safe in Gaza, where Israel had been reluctant to stage large operations in the past because it feared complications of fighting in crowded neighborhoods.

more here.

Chefranden · 10-10-2002, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dave
Show me where it was intentional and we'll have something to talk about.

What? Dresden was an accident?? I have a Korean vet friend who was ordered on several different occasions to level a korean village with his quad 50's. Yes the army intended it. Yes the villages were full of villagers some of whom may have been communists. My friend doesn't sleep so good and hasn't for 50 years. Let's see: Pilot sees a group of people. Pilot bombs group of people. Ya I guess it was intentional since the pilot intended to bomb them.

Look when you know your actions will kill inocent bystanders and you decide to act anyway you give up any claim to accidental deaths. The deaths are not accidents they are intentional even if they are not the intended target. If I find you to be evil and I go blow up your place of work to get you am I responsibe for the deaths of your co-workers. I say I am, but according to your philosophy is just to bad for them. Justice is not done by takeing innocent life. So I'd guess that there ought to be something to talk about.

10-10-2002, 01:08 AM

Allow me to re-phrase:

Show me where the command was "Kill all innocent civilians". Show me where civilians were the target.

Xugumad · 10-10-2002, 01:29 AM

Quote:

dave
Show me where the command was "Kill all innocent civilians". Show me where civilians were the target.

But of course. I believe the Pentagon actually has a website where it details exactly when army officers gave the commands to target civilians, since "We Murder Children!" is Rumsfeld's latest PR slogan.

Surely, a simple Google search will reveal dozens of detailed secret army documents showing civilian targeting. Right?

Come on, now. The decision to target civilians is taken in the field, the instructions handed down are often vague, and the individual action is made by the officers in charge.

Dresden was targeted for no purpose other than to intimidate and weaken an opponent, for absolutely no other military purpose. Civilians (refuges of war to a great extent) in the hundreds of thousands were indiscriminately murdered for exactly that reason.

<a href="http://timewitnesses.org/english/~lothar.html">Dresden</a> took place, so did <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/trenches/mylai.html">My Lai</a> and other massacres. Hiroshima was destroyed and innumerable people - the vast, vast majority civilians - were murdered because the alternative would have cost many American lives, too.

Do the names Arthur Harris or William Calley mean anything to you?

Civilians were targeted and killed in Iraq, <a href="http://www.iacenter.org/bombciv.htm">too</a>. What sort of proof can be presented? The US media was effectively prohibited from reporting accurately on the Gulf War, and on the War in Afghanistan. If there is another war in Iraq, you can be sure the media will be blacked out, again.

The lessons of Vietnam have been learned all-too-well.

War is hell. Civilians are targeted, because it convenient. Fear rules supreme. A fearful enemy is a defeated enemy. Basic lessons in military strategy.

X.

PS: Edit - corrected a spelling error.

jaguar · 10-10-2002, 02:59 AM

Dave you're splitting hairs and avoiding the point. My Lai is by far the most infamous Vietnam incident, purely becase of its size(and brutality) but individual deaths of both POWs and civvies are were common.

Just becase a direct order was not given and repeated on CNN does not mean it has not, and does not happen.

Nic Name · 10-10-2002, 07:57 AM

Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Tobiasly · 10-10-2002, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nic Name
Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki

No links, Nic?

Nic Name · 10-10-2002, 09:30 AM

Hey, you're right.

There are many new members who might not have read this excellent thread.

:p

10-10-2002, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
Just becase a direct order was not given and repeated on CNN does not mean it has not, and does not happen.

I don't watch CNN, so I guess your comment is sorta irrelevant. Please refrain from being an assuming twat in the future.

In my eyes, for the U.S. government (or military) to be a terrorist organization, those as the highest levels of command need to give orders to target and execute civilians. Yes, I'm familiar with My Lai (though I've never heard of Arthurt Harris :P ), and yes, the actions there could definitely be considered terrorism. I didn't check Xug's links, but if I recall correctly, Calley was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison (though was released a few years later - a shame upon our military justice system). As for Arthur Harris and the firebombing of Dresden... was that not an entirely British idea? Ja, I am no expert on the firebombing of Dresden, but I seem to recall Harris being not American (and being in a not American military). I'm sure that's in Xug's links, or can be found with quick google searches for biographies.

I'll read more on that later and probably recant something here, 'cause I'm bound to get something wrong.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been discussed at length previously, but the short of it is that the nook-yoo-lar bombs saved both American and Japanese lives. Consider what a full-scale invasion of the mainland would have cost in human lives on both sides (civilian, too - the indoctrination of the Japanese civilians being the main problem here). Consider what happened on various island invastions (Okinawa, etc) and multiply it by a couple thousand.

Anyway, all that having been said, I don't believe it's SOP for U.S. military personnel to target civilians. This is not to say that civilians don't die - they do, and it's a damn shame. Unfortunately, that's the way of war.

Xugumad · 10-10-2002, 10:39 AM

In Iraq, the civilian population was targeted directly and indirectly. The idea behind it was to cause such unrest in the Iraqi population that they would rise up and overthrow Hussein, or that - at the very least - Iraq would have to surrender or have its people killed systematically.

This is a perfectly 'legitimate' strategy of war; the intimidation and destruction of civilians. To pretend it doesn't exist, and that the US doesn't do it is to shame the US generals and tacticians in charge.

One of the main targets in the Gulf War (and subsequent bombings) was Iraq's water infrastructure. With its destruction, the civilian population would be slowly poisoned. Madeleine Albright - in 1996 60 Minutes interview - unhappily admitted that the death of more than half a million Iraqi children was a high, but necessary price to pay.

Selected army intelligence quotations:

"Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."

"Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks."

""most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."

"Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks."

"Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation."

"Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)"

Links:
<a href="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html">Military document</a> outlining Iraq's water infrastructure, described further <a href="http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html">here</a>.

Good Lord, no, the US (and its allies, including Canada and the UK, let's make no mistake here) would never knowingly and directly target civilians. From a certain point of view, a nuclear bomb is a direct, relatively clean, quick, and painless death for a lot of people. Committing near-genocide through targeted disease and poverty is another thing altogether.

X.

PS: Tangential, but related to the 'targeting civilians' issue: Luckily the US would never knowingly use biochem weapons on its own people, <a href="http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-171044620021009-071023.html">right</a>? <a href="http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html">Right</a>?

10-10-2002, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xugumad
Luckily the US would never knowingly use biochem weapons on its own people, <a href="http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-171044620021009-071023.html">right</a>? <a href="http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html">Right</a>?

Unfortunately, no.

I wish I could honestly say that the U.S. doesn't have anything to be ashamed of in its past, but those things certainly exist.

10-08-2002, 02:23 AM	#16
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	France has stated it supports an attack on Iraq - as long as there is UN backing. Most other nations are saying the same thing, even britan would haver if the US decided to go it alone. I doubt the CIA are involved in this. As for the blast thing - yes it is. Maybe the French were wise to wait and see rather than jumping to conclusions after all the hot air. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

10-09-2002, 11:48 PM	#19
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Intentional killing of civvies? Vietnam comes to mind. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

10-10-2002, 02:59 AM	#24
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Dave you're splitting hairs and avoiding the point. My Lai is by far the most infamous Vietnam incident, purely becase of its size(and brutality) but individual deaths of both POWs and civvies are were common. Just becase a direct order was not given and repeated on CNN does not mean it has not, and does not happen. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

10-09-2002, 11:30 PM	#18
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Show me where it was intentional and we'll have something to talk about.

10-10-2002, 01:08 AM	#22
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Allow me to re-phrase: Show me where the command was "Kill all innocent civilians". Show me where civilians were the target.

10-10-2002, 07:57 AM	#25
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki

10-10-2002, 09:30 AM	#27
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Hey, you're right. There are many new members who might not have read this excellent thread. :p

10-10-2002, 10:39 AM	#29
Xugumad Punisher of Good Deeds Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 183	In Iraq, the civilian population was targeted directly and indirectly. The idea behind it was to cause such unrest in the Iraqi population that they would rise up and overthrow Hussein, or that - at the very least - Iraq would have to surrender or have its people killed systematically. This is a perfectly 'legitimate' strategy of war; the intimidation and destruction of civilians. To pretend it doesn't exist, and that the US doesn't do it is to shame the US generals and tacticians in charge. One of the main targets in the Gulf War (and subsequent bombings) was Iraq's water infrastructure. With its destruction, the civilian population would be slowly poisoned. Madeleine Albright - in 1996 60 Minutes interview - unhappily admitted that the death of more than half a million Iraqi children was a high, but necessary price to pay. Selected army intelligence quotations: "Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease." "Infectious disease prevalence in major Iraqi urban areas targeted by coalition bombing (Baghdad, Basrah) undoubtedly has increased since the beginning of Desert Storm. . . . Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution, electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks." ""most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)." "Conditions in Baghdad remain favorable for communicable disease outbreaks." "Cholera and measles have emerged at refugee camps. Further infectious diseases will spread due to inadequate water treatment and poor sanitation." "Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96)" Links: <a href="http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html">Military document</a> outlining Iraq's water infrastructure, described further <a href="http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/nagy0901.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.fair.org/extra/0111/iraq.html">here</a>. Good Lord, no, the US (and its allies, including Canada and the UK, let's make no mistake here) would never knowingly and directly target civilians. From a certain point of view, a nuclear bomb is a direct, relatively clean, quick, and painless death for a lot of people. Committing near-genocide through targeted disease and poverty is another thing altogether. X. PS: Tangential, but related to the 'targeting civilians' issue: Luckily the US would never knowingly use biochem weapons on its own people, <a href="http://www.local6.com/orlpn/news/stories/news-171044620021009-071023.html">right</a>? <a href="http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html">Right</a>?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)