USA deliberately kills innocent civilians

[bevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060116/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_al_qaida_attack

Do you think the CIA would order a missile strike on a meeting full of George W Bush's relatives, just because Timothy McVee was present?

So why does it feel it is okay to do one on a meeting in Pakistan, just because some Bin Laden off-sider MIGHT be present?

No wonder many in the rest of the world don't like our policies or behavior.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The anti-Bush forces criticise him for invading Iraq because, they claim, he should have stayed focused on Ossama bin Ladan and Al Queda. So when they strike a possible site where Al Queda may be, they criticise him for being mistaken.

This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, the Bush Administration can do that the anti-Bush crowd will be happy with.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The anti-Bush forces criticise him for invading Iraq because, they claim, he should have stayed focused on Ossama bin Ladan and Al Queda.

---

Now hold on just one moment, Shane.

Bevin has a point and it is a good one. He said-

[:"green"] Do you think the CIA would order a missile strike on a meeting full of George W Bush's relatives, just because Timothy McVee was present? [/]

IOWs, is it justified to kill many people for just one? Especially when we have the capability to spy on him [cameras] with a large model airplane with missle capabilities? Why not alert the higher ups that we believe that we have the #2 man in sight and want the order to shoot when he moves away from the 'less innocent' people?

This is a valid point......and to continue to obliterate non-military targets doesn't do our Public Relations campaign ANY good.

This is what I am concerned about. Currently, we have the reputation of doing anything we want anytime we want to keep our interests alive. If that is not a dictatorship philosophy, I will be a monkey's uncle...

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, the Bush Administration can do that the anti-Bush crowd will be happy with.

---

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, the Bush Administration can do that the anti-Bush crowd will be happy with.

---

---

No, it is not a ""damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation."... It's stupidity to not utilize your equipement to maximize your opitions.... Unfortunately, I think that it is a committee decision that was plainly stupid.

[Ron Lambert]

The Pakistanis in that region mostly favor Al Qaeda. Obviously, or else top Al Qaeda leaders would not even have considered attending. The people who support terrorists are deserving of being held accountable with the terrorists they support. Why do the anti-Bushites never bemoan the innocent civilians, including children, who are killed en masse by terrorist suicide bombers and the like? The problem with modern liberals in America, is that they do not know who the bad guys are. They are so inhibited about actually claiming that Americans could be among the good guys, that they would rather see everyone as about the same.

[bevin]

"Kill them all; let God sort out who are his"

No wonder there are entire large sections of foreign populations who hate American foreign policy.

I am a pragmatist - I understand that we need to stop terrorism. That is why I am opposed to the Bush Administrations pro-terrorist recruiting campaigns. It is stupid actions like this, and the defense of these stupid actions, that cause people to want to join Al-Queda.

Bush has actually created a lot more threat than he has controlled. He has actually made the USA a lot less secure than it was before 9/11.

That is the sign of a truely incompetent president and advisors. To get a wake-up call and to spend trillions of dollars and end up worse than we started.

But at least Halliburton is making a fat profit.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The Pakistanis in that region mostly favor Al Qaeda.

---

Granted...And it is assummed that they don't know the policies and the generousity of the American public. So, sure they favor Al Qaeda.

Quote:

---

The people who support terrorists are deserving of being held accountable with the terrorists they support.

---

Held accountable? Yes...But KILL them??? Since they are associating with thier only known political informants, Al Qaeda, we should hold them accountable for thier views and that is deserving of death? Prison, maybe.... but death? I wouldn't put that to them.

Quote:

---

Why do the anti-Bushites never bemoan the innocent civilians, including children, who are killed en masse by terrorist suicide bombers and the like?

---

Now, here is a good straw man arguement. And absolutely worthless.

Quote:

---

The problem with modern liberals in America, is that they do not know who the bad guys are.

---

Oh we KNOW who the bad guys are...They are the ones who get rich at tax payers expense, who favor poor policies over prudent action, who bring in unqualified croonies into office.... In a war, civilians are never the bad guys....

Quote:

---

They are so inhibited about actually claiming that Americans could be among the good guys, that they would rather see everyone as about the same.

---

Not sure what this is refering to...care to clarify, Ron?

[lazarus]

Quote:

---

Ron Lambert said:

Why do the anti-Bushites never bemoan the innocent civilians, including children, who are killed en masse by terrorist suicide bombers and the like?

---

Long before the neo-cons were trumpeting the rights of iraqis and other groups left wingers/ liberals were marching, writing letters, leafleting lobbying. While some of us were demonstrating outside embassies 20 years ago right wingers were cosying up to dictators, excusing aparthite and supporting right wing terrorists. The hypocrisy is so transparent and shameful. Those on the right have never really stood up for human rights with any real consistency and genuine compassion.

Don't you understand that it is the same mentality that would drop a bomb on a house to kill one man but end up killing 20 including children, as a suicide bomber blowing himself up ouside a police station to kill police killing 20 including children.

[Dr. Shane]

The issue that some fail to grasp is the difference between law enforcement and war. There was a big joke in Vietnaum about it being a police action. Officially Vietnaum was not a war, but a police action. But in actuallity it was a war.

However our present situation is war due to an act of Congress:

Authorization for Use of Military Force

September 18, 2001

Quote:

---

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

---

Quote:

---

Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(

of the War Powers Resolution.

---

If it was a police action, killing innocent civilians would be a scandel. However in war, killing innocent civilians is part of "necessary and appropriate force". Consider how many innocent Germans were killed by Allied bombers during WW2.

Do we want to wage a war on terrorists or do we want to hire more policemen and handle the issue as a law enforcement issue?

Quote:

---

Don't you understand that it is the same mentality that would drop a bomb on a house to kill one man but end up killing 20 including children, as a suicide bomber blowing himself up ouside a police station to kill police killing 20 including children.

---

I agree. Both are acts of war.

Quote:

---

Those on the right have never really stood up for human rights with any real consistency and genuine compassion.

---

As a blanket statement I would have to agree with that. However I would not want to paint everyone on the right (or left) with the same brush.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The issue that some fail to grasp is the difference between law enforcement and war.

---

I suspect that you are correct in this...

[:"green"] l-Zawahri sent some aides to the dinner instead and investigators were trying to determine whether they had been in any of the three houses destroyed in the missile strike, one of the officials said Sunday.[/]

Quote:

---

If it was a police action, killing innocent civilians would be a scandel. However in war, killing innocent civilians is part of "necessary and appropriate force". Consider how many innocent Germans were killed by Allied bombers during WW2.

---

And of those bombings, how many were not alerted to the presence of the bombers? Ever hear of an 'air raid sirien"? In this case of destroying a suspected hideout, can you say that these people were warned minutes before the air bombing occured? I don't think so...

Again, with smart bombs, and drones to spy on suspected places, we have more opportunities to be effective, and strike surgically and, thus, not promote terrorism. Otherwise, we are no better than they are.

Quote:

---

Do we want to wage a war on terrorists or do we want to hire more policemen and handle the issue as a law enforcement issue?

---

I am suspecting that terrorism is more of a police action than a military occupation...Don't get me wrong, military actions may be necessary, but it seems to me that strike teams could better assess who to eliminate than carpet bombing a village.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Do we want to wage a war on terrorists or do we want to hire more policemen and handle the issue as a law enforcement issue?

---

The "War On Terror" is a Republican/NeoCon/Bush invention for controlling the unthinking masses in the USA.

Inventing an enemy and justifying your elimination of law and the take-over and looting of a country as part of "defending ourselves from them" is a long-standing ploy of dictators.

9/11 did not actually change anything. The world the day before was actually MORE DANGEROUS for American's than the world the day after - because other countries were prepared to help us attempt to prevent more such attacks.

Then Bush went and UTTERLY BLEW the work that needed to be done. Rather than work with world opinion and form the strong political and moral ties to undercut and isolate the terrorist groups, he blundered around the globe annoying EVERYONE except a few governments that he bought.

I want a sensible and intelligent strategy and plan for eliminating terrorism. That means a HEARTS AND MINDS campaign that UNDERCUTS their support, not a KILLING SOMEONES GRANDCHILDREN strategy that has boosted their supporters and recruiting by orders of magnitude.

More percentage people in Western Pakistan support Bin Laden than percentage people in the USA support GWB.

That is the sign of a blown foreign policy.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

The "War On Terror" is a Republican/NeoCon/Bush invention for controlling the unthinking masses in the USA.

---

That is the view of the far left. Most Democrats would disagree as they are better described as being in the mainstream left as opposed to the far left. Howard Dean and Micheal Moore would certainly agree that the War on Terror is an invention of the Republicans.

The other view is that fundamental Islamic terrorists were looking to start a war so they would be able to increase their recuritment efforts. So they went and attacked the nation most likely to respond. Thus they started a war so they could further their anti-west agenda.