Collateral Murder?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by 786, Apr 6, 2010.

  1. sifreak21 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,671
    to go to war is to accept the murder of innocent bystanders unfortunatly.. thats just how it goes. its really to bad we have to follow "rules of war" where as our advosary doesnt which gives them a MASSIVE upperhand
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The CIA/Blackwater connection I mentioned was specifically their cooperation in the AfPak drone assassinations. Is it true you have read nothing about that? Try the newspapers - any of them.

    Other CIA/Blackwater connections have been reliably alleged, in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere - they are almost inevitable, considering Blackwater's role in those theaters - but we can get to them later if necessary.
    The question of whether the high level of civilian killings in Mesopotamia, by the CIA among others, involves at times what a reasonable person would call collateral murder, is the topic of the OP. If you wish to argue that it doesn't, feel free. If you wish to simply assert that nothing done by US government authorized employers of lethal force can be termed "collateral murder", then your assertion is noted, and we move on.

    One of the topics we might move on to is the role of drone assassinations, among other less publicized violence, in the opium trade. The Afghan government being defended by the US is apparently at least very closely connected, if not identical, with the largest dealers of raw opium in the world, and the drone assassinations have been at least tangentially and occasionally of their major rivals, including families and relatives, etc. Having the world's most lethal military force as your muscle would be an obvious advantage for a drug cartel, and the employment of the CIA and international mercenaries in these assassinations does nothing to reassure observers that the obvious possibility has been carefully avoided.

    Whether the killing of the relatives and associates of rival drug gang leaders is collateral murder, or just plain murder, seems hairsplitting - so we can rest on the collateral term without objection, in such a discussion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Since you seem incapable of providing sources, I will for you:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/12/us/politics/12blackwater.html

    My stance on characterizing drone attacks against armed militants as "murder" is on record.

    Yeah. Specifics would be nice.

    I have.

    I think "collateral murder" is a problematic term being offer by people who seem to confuse murder with homicide, and I've said as much...

    Back to your tired allegations about US involvement in drug trade?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Echo3Romeo One man wolfpack Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,196
    It's also just downright odd to use "collateral murder" to refer to the journalist's death that spawned this thread. Like I said, the journalist was the target and the strike shouldn't have even happened. It isn't like he was hanging around some high value target that was hit knowing it would result in his death; collateral damage justifiable on the basis of military necessity.

    Minor point maybe, but accessible.
     
  8. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    The Socratic method is lazy. It allows you to attack your opponents position without offering up facts of your own, or staking out a position that can be refuted.

    If what you mean is "The President does not have the authority," or whatever, then state your position and defend it.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The term is an odd one, as addressed with reference to drug gang rivals:
    It seems to mean, in practice, "collateral" to the combat operations in general - that it would include even deliberately targeted journalists (such as the one shot while attempting to interview people outside Abu Ghraib, around the time the photos were looking like trouble).
    So you didn't need a source for the common news, this time either?
     
  10. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Don't play games with me, Ice.

    You've been asked several times to provide sources that remotely back your bullshit up. You haven't. Period. Not on Hiroshima, World War II, not about Echelon, Blackwater or CIA "murders."

    Remembering hemming and hawing about how common CIA murders were?

    Remember being asked to provide one source of that?

    Remember not fucking doing it?

    You're just wasting bandwidth.
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I can't stop you from misreading, mistaking, and just plain making shit up about what I've posted, I can't stop you from following me around from thread to thread with your illiteracy and confusion and belligerence and moronic little thug routine, but as long as the moderation here tolerates your behavior I can play games with it.

    Besides, as Strawdog pointed out, you're cute when you're angry, hopping around like it's you who's been abused.

    You don't want your dick whacked? take it off the table. It isn't good for anything else.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2010
  12. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    You've been asked to provide sources for your claims (you know, the ones where you assert facts). This game of yours is getting old. Do it or leave the discussion.

    ~String
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Glad you admitted that you're playing games and not really attempting to have an honest and intellectual discussion. That's been rather obvious for several pages now...
     
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And I have responded with sources and links, etc. - for every such request that actually involved a claim of fact I have actually made and not already sourced.

    Honest requests, from people in good faith reading the actual posts and unfamiliar with the actual facts in reality asserted or mentioned therein, I do respond to (or anticipate, as a couple of times in this thread) with links and illustrative sources. Always have, always will.
     
  15. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Now you're just lying, because you've provided nothing.

    And you can spare us the high-horse routine. You've just admitted to playing games. Your credibility is shot.
     
  16. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    If not direct involvement, at least turning a blind eye that would make Helen Keller wince.

    With over a hundred thousand US & NATO troops in Afghanistan, how does one explain the record breaking and burgeoning opium crops, and the fact that Karzai`s brother is buried under a suffocating pile of Heroin related allegations?

    These you may scrutinize (small selection) here, here and here.

    I mean why is this man not under MAJOR investigation? :m:
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    An update on this horrible mess. Two of the soldiers who were on the ground and who had witnessed the attack on the civilians have come forward and apologised once they realised they were there and had seen first hand what had happened.

    Wise words..
     
  18. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    I heard someone joke recently that the easiest way to get discharged from the military is to step on an Afghani poppy plant!
     
  19. StrawDog disseminated primatemaia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    He He.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But not eradicating opium crops seems official NATO policy, which the Russians are becoming increasing annoyed with.
     

Share This Page