Danish Cartoon backlash, there embassy is blown up in pakistan!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ElectricFetus]

Thats the logic of the airstrikes, isn't it? How many thousands of pounds of bombs thrown this year? Where? On whom? Why? How many died? Who cares?

I'm not asking about the logic of it, I'm asking if it right, is it right to target innocents, is it right to target those that are collectively guilty, I ask you again and again should the collectively guilty die?

Thats the American logic.

and it your logic, unless you denounce it, imagine that: you and the USA military are much alike you both willing ignore the killing of innocent people.

 

[DiamondHearts]

I don't care what counts as legitimate target to the afghanis, I'm asking if it they actually are legitimate targets. My argument is that civilians are never legitimate targets, no matter if there from a country who government is oppsive or not. By your argument an American fetus or and American human rights watcher or an American protester is a legitimate target, the very people trying to protect and defend the Afghanis or people completely unaware by no fault of their own are legitimate targets?

We are not discussing all civilians in America, but mainly foreign presence in Afghanistan, are we not?

Yet it remains so that those who support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , fully knowing this, monetarily and with their children, are justified targets in the eyes of Afghanis, and this is what matters. The victim has the right which is theirs, that of an eye for an eye.

Lets look at it differently, Do all germen deserve to die for world war 2?

Definately not.

So I should die? Answer the question, should I die because of it?

How about the American fetus, still in the womb, its mother has benefited economically from the USA and the fetus would not even be into being if not for the American food it mother eats, does the fetus deserve punishment?



So that makes it right then, great then America is doing no wrong!

No, you don't understand. Legitimate targets are those who continue to fund and support the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, with full knowledge that it is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents. Most American people are just duped into this way of thinking, so they are just gullible, nothing more. That ignorance, however, is causing the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq and the death of an unknown number of Afghani fetuses as we speak.

In the end, occupying foreign land is wrong, and those Americans who travel to Afghanistan or Iraq to ensure the continuation of the occupation are legitimate targets to those Afghanis fighting for their country, their children's lives, and everything dear to them.

Thats the logic of the airstrikes, isn't it? How many thousands of pounds of bombs thrown this year? Where? On whom? Why? How many died? Who cares?




Thats the American logic.

Unfortunately so. Dear God! How many innocents are murdered and how many women and children are raped daily at the hands of these criminals? And yet the injustice continues, what is the crime of these hundreds of thousands slain and dishonored?

S.A.M:


You vote, you pay taxes and enjoy the benefits of Indian hegemony while your own troops commit various human rights abuses in Kashmir. Does that make you fair game for Islamic terrorists from Kashmir?

No, it does not. The fight for Kashmir's independence is with the occupying soldiers and the government of India. Civilians should not be harmed. Unless an Indian actively supports and engages in the brutal rape, murder, and kidnappings of Kashmiri children, they remain innocents.

What bombardment? You mean to say that the Allies have been constantly bombing the entire surface of Afghanistan for 7 years?

Yes. Where have you been? Afghanistan is now a land of smoldering ruins and burnt flesh. And yet here we are 7 years later, and yet its as if this will go on until the end of time.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not asking about the logic of it, I'm asking if it right, is it right to target innocents, is it right to target those that are collectively guilty, I ask you again and again should the collectively guilty die?


and it your logic, unless you denounce it, imagine that: you and the USA military are much alike you both willing ignore the killing of innocent people.

When I see an American blowing himself up because thats all he has left to lose, I'll believe you.

What bombardment? You mean to say that the Allies have been constantly bombing the entire surface of Afghanistan for 7 years?

Du-uh? Where have you been? What the hell do you think they have been doing there? How do you think so many Afghanis became refugees?

http://www.google.com/search?q=US+a...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

[ElectricFetus]

We are not discussing all civilians in America, but mainly foreign presence in Afghanistan, are we not?

Nope, any American civilian, be it in America or on foreign land for what ever reason. Although on this thread we are technically suppose to discuss the legitimacy of attacking people because they are the same nationality as those who draw the mohammad cartoons. But I figure asking if that legitimate is a non-question

Yet it remains so that those who support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq , fully knowing this, monetarily and with their children, are justified targets in the eyes of Afghanis, and this is what matters. The victim has the right which is theirs, that of an eye for an eye.

By eye for and eye logic allows for perpetual killing cycles. If the enemy kills an innocent and you kill and enemy's innocents in vengeance, the enemy will justify killing more innocents and so forth, neither side with their own relativism on reality will see the other sides vengeance killing as justified, and the occupier will have the up hand with all their tanks, guns and bombs. Peaceful protest on the other hand the enemy can't justify killing.

Definately not.

Then you can't justify the killing of any random American or occupier citizen.

No, you don't understand. Legitimate targets are those who continue to fund and support the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, with full knowledge that it is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents. Most American people are just duped into this way of thinking, so they are just gullible, nothing more. That ignorance, however, is causing the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq and the death of an unknown number of Afghani fetuses as we speak.

In the end, occupying foreign land is wrong, and those Americans who travel to Afghanistan or Iraq to ensure the continuation of the occupation are legitimate targets to those Afghanis fighting for their country, their children's lives, and everything dear to them.

The problem here is how do you separate said people, the knowing collaborators, from the ignorant (which you also believe can be killed) to those that defend the oppressed? In some terrorist attack even Afghanis, even the very people oppressed are being killed.

Children them selfs are not "everything dear to them" they are not property but people, killing them to get at others is wrong. An eye for an eye also does not work if an eye is a separate being with it own sentients.

No, it does not. The fight for Kashmir's independence is with the occupying soldiers and the government of India. Civilians should not be harmed. Unless an Indian actively supports and engages in the brutal rape, murder, and kidnappings of Kashmiri children, they remain innocents.

So then American civilians are off the hook too?

 

[Sputnik]

Any Danes, So a Danish Tourist? So a Danish clerical worker in a embassy? So a Danish Child?!?!

War sucks, does it not? But I do not think having the werewithal to kill people from a distance makes a person less culpable. But yeah, if your soldiers are occupying a country, you've declared war against it. You are bombing and killing their citizens. You started it. So why are you complaining? Because they don't have advanced technology to do it the way you do it? How does being an advanced killer capable of killing more people needlessly, make you LESS culpable?

:bawl:

Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh .... SAM think it is OK to kill me , because I hold a danish passport ..........

Actually, I never started any wars .... I haven´t killed anybody with a gun ......I have never drawn a cartoon of Muhammed ...... my soldiers ........ SAM , I don´t have any soldiers ...........

Listen and listen carefully SAM ....... war is a dirty thing .... I do not approve of any civillians to be killed ........ it is an abomination .... if that happens ..... steps should be taken .... and those responsible be punished ....... if it is done by orders ........ then those ordering it should be punished .......

You say it is OK for Denmark to punish those who did it ........ but you actually are saying it is OK to punish people who did nothing ......
Would you like to have muslim danes ( we have many of those ) killed also ...

 

[ElectricFetus]

When I see an American blowing himself up because thats all he has left to lose, I'll believe you.

That still does not answer my question. why don't you answer the question unambiguously and without weaseling around it? The question can simply be boiled down to: "Is terrorism right?"

And many of these terrorist have family and friends and are in good health, in fact they have plenty to lose. These aren't dieing people killing them selves to end the pain!

 

[lepustimidus]

When I see an American blowing himself up because thats all he has left to lose, I'll believe you.



Du-uh? Where have you been? What the hell do you think they have been doing there? How do you think so many Afghanis became refugees?

http://www.google.com/search?q=US+a...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Oh! So what you meant was that the Allies are employing airstrikes against insurgents? Well, why didn't you just say so!?

 

[sniffy]

Innocence and guilt. We hear these terms applied a lot when it comes to 'war'. I think an important thing to remember is that those who organise the killing want us to remain divided and for each and every one of us to see everything in black and white with little or no grey. That 'life for a life' thing everyone spouts; it's the perfect war cry. It keeps the sides nicely divided and keeps people from talking. Who is winning when the body parts of children are strewn into the street; regardless of who blew off their little limbs?

The voters
The silent majority
The vocal minority
The leaders
The followers

Who is winning?

The defence industry/bomb makers?

Who makes the bombs and where are they manufactured? In almost every economically active player on our sorry little planet.

So in this case, then. We are all guilty. Except, if I may make the plea on their behalf, for those little bits of exploded children who once looked up to us adults to set them a good example.

Shame on us; shame on us all. :bawl:

 

[Sputnik]

Sometimes I have this feeling ..... nobody are winning .... everybody are loosing ........ :bawl:

 

[draqon]

Sometimes I have this feeling.....nobody is loosing....everybody is winning....

 

[hypewaders]

We each have unique potentials, achievements, failures- and then we all die just the same. Winning/losing are not entirely meaningless, but temporary.

 

[DeepThought]

We came from the stars, and spend all our time trying to get back up there.

:shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

The question can simply be boiled down to: "Is terrorism right?"

Not really all that clear cut. If a foreign country invades and occupies my country and bombs the citizens of my country for seven (or sixty) years and I am not wealthy enough to bomb them back, what are my options? What would you suggest?

 

[hypewaders]

I would suggest that well-organized non-violence and international solidarity would defeat such an aggressor in less time, with less loss of life, and more dignity.

 

[S.A.M.]

I would suggest that well-organized non-violence and international solidarity would defeat such an aggressor in less time, with less loss of life, and more dignity.

Of course, but you're presuming that everyone can hold out in the same way under that kind of pressure.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Of course, but you're presuming that everyone can hold out in the same way under that kind of pressure.

Ghandi.

 

[S.A.M.]

Ghandi.

Bhagat Singh? Tilak? Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel?

 

[DiamondHearts]

Nope, any American civilian, be it in America or on foreign land for what ever reason. Although on this thread we are technically suppose to discuss the legitimacy of attacking people because they are the same nationality as those who draw the mohammad cartoons. But I figure asking if that legitimate is a non-question

That's not what I have stated. I don't agree with the killing of non-combatants in war, unless they are openly abetting the continuation war, i.e. oil companies, merceneries, security guards for corrupt dictators, etc.

By eye for and eye logic allows for perpetual killing cycles. If the enemy kills an innocent and you kill and enemy's innocents in vengeance, the enemy will justify killing more innocents and so forth, neither side with their own relativism on reality will see the other sides vengeance killing as justified, and the occupier will have the up hand with all their tanks, guns and bombs. Peaceful protest on the other hand the enemy can't justify killing.

No, its wrong to kill the innocent in exchange for the murder of your innocents. We must question, however, why innocents are allowed to be killed in the first place in Afghanistan and Iraq in the hundreds and thousands of no fault of their own.

Then you can't justify the killing of any random American or occupier citizen.

Not in the American homeland, only a few of them a liable. But in Afghanistan and Iraq, they are all occupiers, thus legitimate targets.

The problem here is how do you separate said people, the knowing collaborators, from the ignorant (which you also believe can be killed) to those that defend the oppressed? In some terrorist attack even Afghanis, even the very people oppressed are being killed.

There is large difference between unjustified and justified resistance. Don't paint the whole resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan with one brush, this is not correct.

Children them selfs are not "everything dear to them" they are not property but people, killing them to get at others is wrong. An eye for an eye also does not work if an eye is a separate being with it own sentients.

I agree with this. Killing children is wrong.

So then American civilians are off the hook too?

The vast majority are innocent people, though they may be continuing the occupation with their support. In the end, only the occupiers in occupied land and the higher level leadership are guilty of the crimes. Most people are innocent, though they may have much blame in this.

The lines blur for the victims, however, many of them have faced 7 years of death and destruction. The right of the victim is his alone, that of revenge against the oppressor. He has the right to forgive, yet this is not required by him. Id he forgives, he is benevolent. If he does not forgive and seeks revenge against the occupier, he is still justified.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Not really all that clear cut. If a foreign country invades and occupies my country and bombs the citizens of my country for seven (or sixty) years and I am not wealthy enough to bomb them back, what are my options? What would you suggest?

It does not take any difference in money to blow your self up on top of soldiers then on top of children. Killing children is actually going to harden your enemies against you and now they will have proof to claims that your savages, thus reducing causes to help you. A better avenue would be mass protests, sabotage of military and industrial complexes and general, but general non-violence thus making your self appear morally superior to your oppressors.

DiamondHearts
I don't get it, you say is wrong to kill innocents in one sentence and then say it right in another example:

I don't agree with the killing of non-combatants in war

and

they are all occupiers, thus legitimate targets.

this is just one example but it illustrate the problem: if they are all occupiers they must not be non-combatants? So say the humanitarian relief worker, the journalist, the war crimes inspectors, the child, the baby, they are all armed and trying to kill you???

I have not brush over the nature of resistance in iraq, I clearly made distinctions between those who fight soldiers and those that blow them selves up in market places, one is legitimate defense the other is terrorism.

Morality does not exist in the vacuum, you cannot simply judge the morality of one side without judging the other.

If the rights of the victim are relative then the rights of the oppressor are too, you can't have it both ways. If the victim has the right to kill anyone in defense then the oppressor has the same right in counter-defense.

 

[DiamondHearts]

It does not take any difference in money to blow your self up on top of soldiers then on top of children. Killing children is actually going to harden your enemies against you and now they will have proof to claims that your savages, thus reducing causes to help you. A better avenue would be mass protests, sabotage of military and industrial complexes and general, but general non-violence thus making your self appear morally superior to your oppressors.

As the death of Afghani and Iraqi children has hardened the minds of Afghani and Iraqi resistance fighters.

DiamondHearts
I don't get it, you say is wrong to kill innocents in one sentence and then say it right in another example:

and

this is just one example but it illustrate the problem: if they are all occupiers they must not be non-combatants? So say the humanitarian relief worker, the journalist, the war crimes inspectors, the child, the baby, they are all armed and trying to kill you???

I have not brush over the nature of resistance in iraq, I clearly made distinctions between those who fight soldiers and those that blow them selves up in market places, one is legitimate defense the other is terrorism.

Morality does not exist in the vacuum, you cannot simply judge the morality of one side without judging the other.

If the rights of the victim are relative then the rights of the oppressor are too, you can't have it both ways. If the victim has the right to kill anyone in defense then the oppressor has the same right in counter-defense.

The occupier is that person in Afghanistan and Iraq who is abetting the occupation. Civilians in the homeland are another matter altogether. Read my post more thoroughly.