Why is it okay for us to do this in a drone attack on civilians

[Mari333]

and then weep when people suffer in Haiti?

and where is the news media on the ground in Afghanistan, Pakistan, et al
covering the atrocities we inflict?

I call it hypocritical .

http://www.rawa.org/index.php

[Forkboy]

1. Because we're a pretty fucked up species that's totally psychotic.

At least that's what I think.

[galileoreloaded]

10. +1 We are animals....

[GreenMetalFlake]

34. and endless amounts of smooth, comforting rhetoric to justify the grotesque discrepancy

[NJmaverick]

2. How do we know that isn't one of the victims of the Taliban suicide attack today?

[Little Star]

9. Is your point that we don't kill children?

Nice try at deflection. Just because the Taliban kills children, maybe even this child, does not mute the point that the poster was making. Would you have preferred "Taliban does this shit and so do we)? Get real.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Not intentionally like the Taliban does.

[tekisui]

17. Bombing targets that are known to have civilians and children is

not intentional killing of children?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. No.

If the U.S. intentionally wanted to kill children they'd do a better job of it.

[reggie the dog]

53. yes, bombing a place where you know there are kids

is killing kids with intent as much for the Taliban, Al Quida, whomever, as it is for the US military and its allies....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Is that the same as bombing a place because there are kids there?

[reggie the dog]

59. no, bombing a place because there are kids there is

targeting kids intentionally, as opposed to inentially dropping a bomb on a place where we know there are kids in order to kill another target.

[Little Star]

24. Can I have some of what your smoking? n/t

[NJmaverick]

27. You're right. Ignore claims by posters that never sat in on a targetting decision

and are now trying to sell you on the baseless claim that the US will target sites with children, rather than imperfect intelligence being the cause.

[Little Star]

36. If you and I know that we have imperfect intelligence then

our Govt. and military do also. They make the choice to bomb anyway. They are still the cause.

[NJmaverick]

48. Good question.... The answer is you just don't get perfect intelligence

and it comes down to a matter of trying to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan or letting them operate with impunity. As is often the case in life the choice is an ethical dilemna. In this case it comes down to the lesser of two evils.

[arcadian]

47. Really? Food packets dropped are often the same size, shape and color as cluster bomblets?

Looks intentional. anybody who thinks that wars aren't waged on civilian populations intentionally is an idiot.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/dont-confuse-food-parcels-with-cluster-bombs-warns-us-633197.html

[NJmaverick]

49. your 2001 article in no way shape or form supports your hyperbole filled claims

in fact one would be very safe in saying your claims are utterly baseless

[arcadian]

50. You are wrong

as usual

[NJmaverick]

60. Yeah that's why the military was making announcements to stay away from the packets

they were using reverse psychology to lure them to their deaths.:eyes:

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Igel]

64. "Often" isn't supported.

If by "often" you mean that it's repeated with more than one manufacturing run of munitions and food packets.

The assumption has to be that the same team who designed the cluster bombs a decade or two ago and decided what color to make the bomblets also designed the food packets or decided on what color to make them. But it's just an assumption, and it strikes me as much more likely that different divisions of the DoD produced the cluster bombs and the food packets, and the two teams were probably separated in time and space and chain of command. In other word, I think the assumption's probably wrong.

But you have some similarities. Form follows function. We eat fairly small quantities of food, bomblets are made to be fairly small. We want people to be able to find and retrieve the food packets easily so they're brightly colored, probably in order to be used in a variety of landscapes and not be confused with something else. We want people to be able to find and avoid the bomblets easily so they're brightly colored, probably in order to be used in a variety of landscapes and not be confused with something else. Yellow or red would be okay. Blue, dunno. Green and brown are out, as are other earth tones. We want both to disperse, we want them to scatter, and we probably want them to fall most of the way to the ground to form a fairly tight pattern--bomblets much tighter than food packets, to be sure.

So "looks intention" doen't mean "it logically follows that it is intentional."

Then there's the request that we deduce particular from a general statement about possibilities. True, wars can be waged intentionally against a civilian population. The question is, is *this* war being waged intentionally against a civilian population. The general possibility doesn't address that and entails that "wars can be not waged against a civilian population."

You have a hypothesis. Set out for data to support or falsify it.

[noamnety]

51. Shock and Awe

Sure, we had no clue there were any civilians here.

[NJmaverick]

16. My point is that a picture was posted that claims to be one thing

but the site lists it ONLY as a child burned. What happened to the idea that it's important to get the facts straight? When did causes become so powerful that the truth can be discarded in pursuit of them?

You want anoother fact? Nearly 70% of the civilian casualties in Afghanstan is coming from the Taliban, not the Afghan and NATO troops.

[Little Star]

43. What? Gotcha, because she may have used a picture

that only said child burned? Lame! We all know there are plenty of pictures of children we have killed. You are trying to hard to defend the defenseless.

Your other fact also means jack crap. Listening to you I would have to think it's ok for us to have killed 10, 20 or 30% of the Afghan civilian casualties.

Try thinking out your argument it makes no sense.
.

[leftstreet]

3. Good question n/t

[gateley]

4. It's not. nt

[itsrobert]

5. The Taliban use these victims as human shields

and Propaganda. Looks like it's working on you.

[tekisui]

7. Bombing populations of known civilians is inexcusable.

[itsrobert]

20. Using them as human shields is inexcusable

Why are you defending the Taliban?

[tekisui]

26. I'm not.

It is inexcusable to use children as shields and to bomb populations know to have children in them.

It isn't an either/or. Both acts are atrocious. We have a lot of innocent blood on our hands.

[anonymous171]

8. Yeah, fuck their suffering.

[noamnety]

11. Both sides do that. (nt)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Evidence?

[itsrobert]

23. The US have human shields?

Yeah, I'll like to see the evidence on that one.

[noamnety]

40. Old quote from the wall street journal:

"Capt. Ayers took lessons from his fellow captains. In April, Capt. Jesse Beaudin convinced a friend from the U.S. to send backpacks, notebooks and pencils for schoolchildren. Kids mobbed troops for the goods whenever they went out on patrol. "The kids provided security. No one attacked us when we were surrounded by children," Capt. Beaudin says. After hearing about this tactic at the dining hall, Capt. Ayers's men also wrote home requesting school supplies."

[itsrobert]

42. Were these children held against their will

And is the US housing civilian women and children in their headquarters building?

[noamnety]

44. By definition, human shields can be volunteers or held against their will.

Or entirely ignorant of the fact that they are even being used as human shields (setting up military HQs in a hospital where patients are unaware of their existence there). In the case of US troops using children as human shields, they were bribing them to be around the soldiers, and taking advantage of the kids not realizing they were being used that way.

Clearly there are ethical problems (*cough* war crimes) involved in bribing kids who aren't even capable of understanding the risks involved as a result of the service they are providing to our troops.

[Ignis]

57. Goalposts on wheels? Check! (nt)

[Igel]

65. Different problem.

Can you perform induction on a single instance or small set of instances to determine what the general rule is? Well, sometimes. Sometimes not.

"The US uses human shields" has at least two meanings. The first involves a concrete instance. The second states it as a habitual occurrence. Getting from the first to the second is a reach. It's the goalpost that was moved second, generalizing from an token to a class of tokens.

The goalpost that was moved first is "several US soldiers" to "US" (metonymic for "US military", of course). Can you generalize from the actions of a small set to say anything meaningful about US policy? Well, people on both sides of the political divide say you can do that kind of thing. Some point to a few Muslims who are terrorists, and promptly say all Muslims are terrorists. Yup, same bit of not-quite-right logic. It's obvious when you don't agree with the conclusion. The answer is that you can generalize, if you show that the individuals are abiding by the generally accepted and promulgated policy or rule.

Sometimes I get the impression that the goalposts are 2 feet tall and on little well-greased tracks with pull-strings to make moving them so simple and easy.

[Ignis]

69. No induction necessary: There is a chain of command.

When there is clear accountability--and it doesn't get more clear than having a rigid hierarchy (church) or chain of command (military)--and when publicly-stated policies are not unwaveringly enforced inside the organization, then yes, I do believe we can move from "a few priests" to "the Church" and from "a few bad apples" to "the US military."

If we were discussing a non-hierarchical, heterogeneous group--anti-war protestors, for example--then I think you'd have a stronger case.

---

And even if you strongly disagree with the above, two moving goalposts do not make a right. :D

[winyanstaz]

56. So if they use kids as human shields...that makes it ok for us to kill the kids?

[Igel]

66. What do you mean by "okay"?

Morally good? No.

Morally defensible. Possibly.

International treaty parses the morality well enough. Certain things are not military targets and cannot be legitimately targeted: civilians, civilian infrastructure, places of worship and hospitals. For example. You can expect them to not be bombed. They might be, accidents happen. But the bomber should take reasonable--not all possible--precautions. (Taking all possible precautions essentially stipulates that the morally superior force loses.)

Certain things can be legitimately targeted: Soldiers, munitions, military infrastructure. These are things typically known to be valid military targets, and, depending on circumstances, you might expect them to be bombed. They might not be bombed, accidents happen or the targets might not be known or accessible.

The typical values clash comes when you mix and match--munitions in a church, billeting soldiers in a hospital, mixing kids with soldiers. Then you have to weigh if the target is worth the damage; there are no rules or examples, you merely have to weigh the cost against the results, knowing that if it's too out of whack you let important things go unscathed that will kill your troops or civilians or that you'll be killing civilians too indiscriminately.

However, if you weigh things reasonably well, you can go ahead a target the soldiers, church, hospital. And, because these things are known to the church authorities, the kids, or the hospital administrator(s), if they allow them to happen they consent to being targeted. If a car's coming down the road at 30 mph and you wait until it's almost to you to step in front of it you go splat, but the driver's held innocent. You committed suicide. He's not going to be sentenced for your suicide. If you push your father in front of the car, the driver's not going to be held responsible for your homicide.

Target kids? Bad, illegal, immoral. Target military object next to kids? Bad, possibly legal, and while not entirely moral certainly not guilt-making. Not everybody can resist the urge to take all the guilt and responsibility on themselves. Not everybody can be bothered with reasonably and soberly weighing the cost and benefits of bombing a target with otherwise protected assets or people next to it. Some people just don't meet the job description.

[winyanstaz]

70. It is never ok to blow up kids or civilians.....

"Target military object next to kids? Bad, possibly legal, and while not entirely moral certainly not guilt-making."

Yes it is "bad"...it is worse than "bad" it is murdering kids.
POSSIBLY LEGAL to blow up something knowing damned well you will be killing kids and possible civilians? No it is NOT "possibly" legal. That is a war crime. Already covered by law and world wide courts.
And if you feel war crimes and killing kids and civilians just because they happen to be close to something you want to blow up is not guilt-making.....then I suggest you have no heart.
I am a Military widow..and from a military family and I have had to help men who cried like babies almost every night for the rest of their lives because of babies and innocent civilians they had blown up. Some drank themselves to death.
Ask the vietnam vets if they have no guilt.
And for what? So some asshole sitting at a table can send men on the front lines to do horrible things that will ruin their lives forever...just to make themselves a buck?
War is insanity run amok.

[tekisui]

6. It is hypocritical.

And terribly sad.

[Mari333]

13. we are the bad guys.

a lot of people dont want to believe that.
we are the bad guys.
even the people of Haiti know that, if you read the history of Haiti.
we, the USA, have been the bad guys for a long long time. all over the planet.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DevonRex]

15. Then we should just stop helping Haiti since we're so evil and all.

:eyes:

[Mari333]

19. the good people of the USA still exist

the govt, not so good. they will use it as a PR stunt for ratings.

[DevonRex]

25. So you think like Rush Limbaugh that Obama is using this as a PR stunt to boost his poll numbers.

That was a crock of shit when Limbaugh said it and it's still a crock of shit when you say it.

Edited to delete "and" from the title line.

[Mari333]

28. he would have more credibility with me if he would not continue the occupations

right now, I dont trust any politician on either side when they wring their hands and weep over Haiti.

[DevonRex]

32. I'll take that as a "yes" then. You DO agree with Rush. Glad I don't live on your planet. nt

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. The disconnect is amazing, isn't it?

If the whore media spread the LIE that there was a cell of the mostly fictional "Al Qaeda" in Haiti, there would be posts on this board saying "them terraists got what they deserved".

[Mari333]

22. aye

[mrbarber]

31. Yeah, and if the whore media stated that their were aliens in Haiti planning world conquest..

Hyperbolic bullshit.

BTW, have either of you two actually donated or done anything to help the people in Haiti, or does your activism end with bitching on a online message board?

[NJmaverick]

29. I was appaulled when George Bush used the deaths of the thousands of 9/11 to push his political

agenda. I am shocked that people on my side would do the same with the Haitian deaths and suffering. Death and suffering should not be exploited for poltical gain, in my opinion.

[anonymous171]

35. Simply pointing out hypocrisy is not exploitation.

[NJmaverick]

46. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet

and garbage by any other name still stinks

[Igel]

67. Hypocrisy has to be based on the terms of the person accused of being a hypocrite.

Obama is not a hypocrite, nor is the US Army--at least not in this matter. Individuals may be--but then again, those using human shields and setting civilians as targets still might not be, they may want no relief for Haiti and be acting consistently with their professed values.

They know the Geneva Conventions and laws of war and abide by them, understanding the morality encoded in them and taking that as their moral code for the wars. Humanitarian assistance to Haiti doesn't violate that code, and is completely consistent with it. Nothing in those codes violates the idea of trying to help civilians when possible after a natural disaster.

In fact, even if they did lapse from their professed values and virtues that still doesn't qualify as hypocrisy. Mistakes happen, and at a minimum consistency in not living up to your standards is necessary. Awareness of the mismatch between your values and your actions helps to be sure.

The problem comes in applying your own morality or your interpretation of their morality to them and saying that the morality you think they (should) hold for the conduct of war is at odds with the morality needed to engage in humanitarian assistance. Then you're comparing their conduct not against their professed valued and virtues (which is required for the very definition of "hypocrisy") but against your professed values and virtues or what you want theirs to be.

That's not hypocrisy on their part. That's you saying that they don't rise up to your standards, so you're judging them not on their terms, but on your own. If you want to say you think they're immoral or foolish, say it. It's far more accurate than calling them hypocrites and points out the source of the dispute much more clearly. It's not that they're inconsistent and somehow deceitful and merit judgment: It's that you disgree so we must judge between you and Obama.

[stray cat]

30. Involuntary manslaughter versus 1st degree murder - ie intent

did you object to 9-11 as well? or Hamas firing rockets?

[stray cat]

33. and have you done any sacrifice at all to change either event?

[tekisui]

37. lol! It's your fault Mari333!

:rofl:

I guess if you haven't sacrificed something, you don't have standing to criticize?

[Mari333]

39. ah I have so many more people on ignore now

I love them all anyway. Its hard to face the cold hard facts of destruction by the MIC. god bless all that cognitive dissonance, I guess.

[abelenkpe]

41. It isn't OK

My big problem with the whole war on terror is that we bomb people "suspected" of being terrorists. We skip the whole law and order stuff of gathering evidence, convicting them in a court of law. Drones attacks are judge, jury and punishment all wrapped up in one. How do we know the information given isn't just playing into a tribal dispute? How many are just one neighbor taking out the other for reasons completely unrelated to terrorism? Why are we the law in a country other than our own? Too many innocent people get caught up in this and that breeds further extremism and hatred of the US. That and the whole preemptive attack rhetoric. I just can't wrap my head around the morality issue. How can I explain this to my kids when I can't explain it to myself?

[robdogbucky]

45. Give what you can for Haitian relief

As Bill Clinton said "give what you can, a dollar, two dollars makes a differnce down there."

How 'bout that for technique? Seriously,in other news, as cited by Mari333;


Pakistan drone attack 'kills many'

A suspected US drone attack has killed at least 18 people and injured 14 others in Pakistan's northwest tribal belt, near the Afghan border, security officials say.

The attack took place in Pasalkot village in North Waziristan, a stronghold of Taliban and al-Qaeda-linked fighters…
"…The use of drone strikes in Pakistan is highly controversial but there's no sign of the Americans stopping them any time soon," he said.

"They will regard this latest operation as a huge success - targeting and killing what they say were a number of militants."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/01/201011453930817749.html


Mari333, thanks for bringing this up. It takes courage in light of the natural disaster-caused suffering in Haiti at the moment to remind of all the intentional killing that is ongoing, unabated, by all sides to the conflicts in the middle east.

Love to see the war promoters show up with their rhetoric and techniques. Now we know our crimes in this collective shit-storm were all due to “imperfect intelligence,” and I am impressed, that really saves the day doesn’t it? Kinda like the natural contradiction in terms of “military intelligence,” as so aptly pointed out by the late George Carlin RIP. And 9/11 has been invoked how many times thus far? Seems pretty formula to me.

Reading Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Pakistan Alan Fisher’s comments in this article reminded me of where we have come from the days of Benazir Bhutto and puppet Musharraf to drones and Blackwater now being used by our president and our CIA to affect the changes we want to see for us and our client state in a region where we are operational.

I think when you target a refugee camp you are knowingly targeting areas with children and other civilians, no? What is our intelligent military doing by that?


Yikes, I have to go earn a living now. No time to exchange snark with the reactionary-apologists.


Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[reggie the dog]

52. because the people we blow up are muslim

and haiti has christians, this is a CRUSADE remember, w. said so......I too had the same question you had...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Because the New Boss says it's "necessary". K&R

[winyanstaz]

55. It is worse than hypocritical...

It is pure unadulterated evil.

[Ignis]

58. It's brave of you to have posted this.

Inconvenient truths aren't any less true.

:kick:

[invictus]

62. If they are Muslims, they had it coming. They hate our freedoms and threatened Israel.

:sarcasm:

[lunatica]

63. It's not OK with all of us

I've been screaming about this since before the war on Afghanistan. One of my lady friends finally interrupted me one day shortly after I told her about the bombing of civilians and said, "I'm sorry but quite frankly I don't care. They're all the same to me and I want them dead."

I guess she'd had enough of my bleeding heart.

[Caliman73]

68. I agree.

Unfortunately it is easy for people to compartmentalize and dehumanize others when they are scared and or angry. I think it is completely wrong to use drones to attack any populated area.