Think [the box] ing discussion
Current Affairs
>
"War on (of) Terror" "Security"
date
newest »
newest »
yep
and i notice that the reported indicates there was a peach bra on the manequin
and i'm now distracted from the issue at hand thinking why was it important, relevant to note
the "peach bra"
sorry
some one else please-on topic
and i notice that the reported indicates there was a peach bra on the manequin
and i'm now distracted from the issue at hand thinking why was it important, relevant to note
the "peach bra"
sorry
some one else please-on topic
Mod
We discussed the causes and if policy and continued US/UK presence is a factor in increasing terror or not.
Following is an article published today which i wanted to share and which also talks about this.
I feel i have two choices.. either shut up and rage impotently (likely followed by giving up and not caring or essentially allowing it to continue - i am almost at this point now, but i dont want to be)or speak out and hope that enough people keeping asking tough questions that demand answers. So apologies if it sounds like i am blowing a trumpet again. This is as much for me, as you. I had/have lost hope and doing so is dangerous to ever thinking one can prevent vast intentional human tragedy.
Yes, "we" are there.."we" are entangled.. which is something that should not happen impo, foreign relationships should not be entangling. That said, just being there does not mean that continuing to be there is the right thing to do.
impo the right thing to do is admit mistakes, offer apologies, and act with diplomacy and trade.
If something was wrong (invading Iraq was and is wrong), when is it then right to continue that wrong...?
------------
Didn't They Already Get Saddam?
Was Killing Iraqi Children Worth It?
By JACOB G. HORNBERGER
A snapshot of the opening scene in the U.S. invasion of Iraq provides an excellent insight into the immorality and horror of the entire operation, from start to whenever it finally finishes.
According to an article in yesterday's New York Times, at the outset of the invasion the U.S. military dropped bombs on a palatial compound in which Saddam Hussein was hiding. The article states:
"But instead of killing the Iraqi dictator, they had killed Mr. Kharbit's older brother, Malik al-Kharbit - the very man who had led the family's negotiations with the C.I.A. to topple Mr. Hussein. The bombings also killed 21 other people, including children, and the fury it aroused has been widely believed to have helped kick-start the insurgency in western Iraq."
Now, that episode has at least two important lessons.
First, prior to the invasion the popular mantra among U.S. officials and many private Americans was the need to "get Saddam." But as we often pointed out here at The Future of Freedom Foundation, it was never going to be just a question of "getting Saddam." Instead, it was going to be a question of how many Iraqi people, including children, U.S. forces would have to kill before they "got Saddam."
The article doesn't state whether the U.S. military had actual knowledge that there were innocent people, including children, in the compound that it bombed. But it is a virtual certainty that they did have such knowledge. After all, if their intelligence was sufficiently good to know that Saddam was hiding in the compound, it had to be sufficiently good to know that there were other people living in the compound, including children.
Thus, when the U.S. military dropped those bombs, it had to be with the full knowledge that they would be killing innocent people in the process, including the children. And even if they didn't "know" that there were innocent people in the compound at the time they dropped the bombs, they knew that there were dropping the bombs in reckless disregard of whether there were innocent people there or not.
The fact is that U.S. officials didn't care whether there were innocents, including children, in that compound. Those children and their parents were obviously considered a small price to pay if Saddam Hussein had been killed at the outset of the war.
Of course, this attitude would match the attitude taken by U.S. officials throughout the period of the brutal sanctions that were enforced from 1991 to 2003. As tens of thousands of Iraqi children were dying year after year from the sanctions, the U.S. attitude was that those deaths were a small price to pay for ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein. That's why UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, upon being asked whether the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi from the sanctions were worth it, she replied that yes - they were "worth it." She was expressing the sentiment of the U.S. government, a sentiment that manifested itself again in the bombing of the compound in which those Iraqi children and their families were killed.
Second, the killing of those children and their families is just one example of how U.S. foreign policy has engendered anger and hatred for the United States, which produces the threat of terrorist retaliation, which brings about the "war on terrorism," which results in more interventions, more massive military spending, and ever-increasing loss of liberty at home.
Let me repeat what the Times article said: "The bombings also killed 21 other people, including children, and the fury it aroused has been widely believed to have helped kick-start the insurgency in western Iraq."
Now, ask yourself: Why has the U.S. government been occupying Iraq for the past 5 years? Didn't they already "get" Saddam? Hasn't he already been executed?
The answer is that U.S. officials, having "gotten" Saddam must now "get" the "bad guys" in Iraq. And who are the "bad guys?" They're the Iraqis who are angry over the killing of Iraqis, including women and children, who had to be killed in the process of "getting Saddam."
As they continue to bomb all these "bad guys," they continue to kill more innocents, including more Iraqi children and their families, which then incites more fury, which then causes more "bad guys" to join the insurgency. Those additional "bad guys" are then used as the excuse to continue the occupation of Iraq, an occupation that for obvious reasons will go on indefinitely.
To state what I consider self-evident moral truths, it was morally wrong and a grave violation of God's laws to:
(1) attack a country whose government and citizenry had never attacked the United States;
(2) kill Iraqis, including children and their families, in order to achieve regime change in Iraq; and
(3) kill Iraqis, including children and their families, in order to spread "democracy" to Iraq.
One can only wonder whether the American people, in crises of conscience, will ever confront such issues.
Source
Mod
(1) attack a country whose government and citizenry had never attacked the United States;
(2) kill Iraqis, including children and their families, in order to achieve regime change in Iraq; and
(3) kill Iraqis, including children and their families, in order to spread "democracy" to Iraq.
One can only wonder whether the American people, in crises of conscience, will ever confront such issues.
Okay … I have several problems with the author’s self evident “truths.”
Point 1 is completely incorrect. What is actually self-evident is that Iraq was under an armistice agreement which the government of Iraq agreed to in order to end the previous war (which IMO was a justified invasion). Iraqi forces WERE firing upon the American military over flights almost daily. The Iraqi government was clearly belligerent toward the United States and provided financial support to organization attacking American allies. To even imply that our invasion was unprovoked is clearly a dishonest foundation for debate … a more accurate statement, and one more clearly in line with the Christian concept of a just war, would be to simply state that Iraq was [not] an imminent threat to the US … which was actually debatable at the time the decision was made.
Point 2 has nothing what so ever to do with God’s law. War is all about completely destroying your enemy's will to fight. Any attempt to make it clean, limited or ‘chivalrous’ entirely misses the point of war. I don’t think anybody can provide even one example of an actual war where ‘innocent’ children and their families were not brutalized. It is a part of war ... and it one of the reasons why I am such a war opponent. What we can do is separate out military objectives which actually target said innocents … the bombing of London as an example … from those which actually have a legitimate strategic or tactic advantage. Directly targeting civilians rarely achieves any such an advantage … Arguing that killing Saadam would Not provide such an advantage is naïve at best.
Point 3 … IIRC this was never actually given as a justification of invasion, merely as a benefit of regime change that was advocated in Point 2. Anybody who puts this idea and the primary justification for attacking Iraq should be having a crisis of conscious … but I doubt that would include most Americans.
aack! Truthers....jeebus folks can we take off the tinfoil hats for at least a day? Thanks Kristjan for saving me the trouble of having to slap down those "moral truths" The nipple ring escapade has more to do with TSA / personal incompetence than the War on Terror.
Here's some numbers which quite clearly demonstrate how we conduct ourselves on the battlefield. These are numbers coming from ongoing operations in the Sadr City section of Baghdad:It appears that roughly ~3,100 people have been killed and wounded in Sadr City. Of that number 74% are adult males (~2,300).
Hospital sources say 532 people have died. Bill Roggio reports the US and ISF have killed at least 502 criminals. Thus it appears that 95% of the dead are bad guys.
I conclude that very few children and women have been killed. Virtually all of the women and children casualties have been wounded.
It goes without saying that, except the 502, all other casualties could have been hit by us, by the JAM or debris.
I think we come out looking pretty good. Unlike the islamists, we aim at something and then almost always hit it.
NB, I want to molest your butt. I love you man.**staggers over to NB and grabs his ass**
Have at it Nick...after all I am a cat, so most likely I'd be sticking my butt in your face as it is.
is that before or after you claw my thigh.
before, during, and after. Unless you have Pit-R-Pats. Got any? Looooooooooove those things...yum!
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in the USA shows once again how the "War on Terror" is being used to terrorise us.
Sadistic bastards. When are we going to demand an end to this nonsense "war on terror" and its "security" checks? It is merely terrorising us.
(and in case someone cries out that it could have been a risk, and doesnt read the article.. She offered to show a female officer the "offending" items, so no there was no risk whatsoever.)
There are countless examples of similar and worse treatments of people since the "war on terror" was declared. I wont get into a huge post right now about the why there is now a declared "War on Terror". The fact is that there is and it is largely based upon two planes crashing into two towers in New York. It is a fact that there are many questions and issues surrounding that event that demand us to question why we should all meekly bend over and accept this "War on Terror" no matter what.
What is your tipping point..? What liberties are you prepared to give up for this "War on Terror"..? What liberties are you prepared to allow be taken away from others..?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin
I am certain that it is statistically much more likely that we are now more likely to suffer terror at the hands of government agencies or police than at the hands of other terrorists.