Oh, its "subjective" alright. But the towns you mentioned were not destroyed and the civilian deaths were a result of the pursuit of enemy combatants -- who themselves -- melded in and fought from, the civilian population. But, lets get to your real point: U.S. soldiers intentionally targeted and killed the civilians in those cities ? ? ?
Where did I say that was my real point? Or are you making shit up as you go along?
You know, we (you and I) don't come to this point without history. I recall very well a couple of years ago where you called almost every death in Iraq the work of muderous U.S. soldiers. And, I recall saying to you then that yes, there are deaths caused by idiots on both sides, but the overwhelming majority of U.S. forces did not, and I don't believe would, indescriminately kill, without justification.
I called every death caused by the US Military the fault of the US Military. Is there any other way to see someone who kills someone else?
Also, why are you attempting to change the subject?
I realize you are being emotional here but if you're going to be dishonest I just won't reply to you anymore.
None of what you said right there was a real response to what I said. I only said that saying a town was decimated was open to interpretation. It is obvious from your response you have other issues.
I know you disagree with that. But its just your disagreement until you can show proof to the contrary -- and not just some kook-ass website saying its so but without showing the proof either.
wtf? Why reply if you are gonna have this kind of ridiculous bullshit of an argument?
You know I disagree with what? Tell me tomorrow's lotto numbers while youre at it.
I only said what I said. Your attempts at predicting my possible alternate intent are awful.
I expected more from you.
What are the hardened military targets; and where are they located ? ? ?
Please be specific.
List your criteria for determining what is a hardened military target and the criteria used by US military forces to label the sites you claim were hardened military targets in Iraq.
Please be specific.
My argument would be the same'; but my argument is not loaded with your obvious assumption: that most, if not all, members of the armed forces are simply cold blooded killers out to indescriminately rob, rape, murder and plunder.
Okay so you ignore the fact that US personnel were in fact rounding up military age males since the army was disbanded and many deserted prior to that, then you inject some bullshit that never came out of my keyboard.
I'll say it again, if you're incapable of responding to what I actually write, when I write it, why bother responding?
Have I said any of the bullshit you're asserting in this thread? No.
In the past I condemned those who consciously chose to participate in the murder of innocents. Since then I have become more understanding of the motivations of those who participate in the military. I still feel strongly about those who would obey orders to perform criminal acts. I have not turned this discussion into that discourse - you have.
I merely asked some questions and made some statements - none of which pointed to the sidetopic you have brought up. Personally, I guess you're just getting overly emotional about it but its not really productive.
Based on my personal experience, thats just not the truth -- and, your believing it, without proof, is never going to make it true, either.
Again wtf are you talking about? Is that a reply to whether or not you'd feel the same if your city was occupied by a foreign army?
wtf
are you even reading what I wrote?
god damn
My apologies; I didn't. Lets call them command and control, search and fire control, and missile launch sites, especially when they are housed in hardened or other structures meant to increase their survivability. Those targets are always high on the order of battle and when they are housed in such structures, fire power has to be increased and when fire power is increased the more likely nearby structures and people will be affected.
I took your hardened military target to mean something similar with a few bunkers thrown in.
I understand you were alluding to Iraqi army using schools and hospitals but these werent hardened sites just moving to civilian sites to evade bombing and that wasnt anything new nor anything I was talking about when discussing "decimating" towns. Its hard to isolate military or command and control sites from civilians in metropolitan areas during conflict. That's just a fact.
We are in agreement about why civilians are affected by this.
Hospitals may have been bombed, but you sir naturally arrive at the conclusion that the strike was (1) intentional, (2) without justification, and (3) not a fucking mistake. Before you arrive at intentional, you should consider all of the alternatives.
Where the fuck did I say that? Quote it.
That shit is immaterial to this discussion in my opinion. Why does it matter what the intent was if the people are still dead? We are talking dead civilians not pilot or commander's intent. Some civilian targets were intentionally targeted over the years. Desalinization plants, dual purpose facilities etc
Attacking Iraq was intentional and without justification. That is what I said, I did not pass that conclusion down the line to every bombing raid. The point being, who fuckin cares why a hospital was bombed during a war that was based on lying to the world? The shit is not justified on any level.
Now, how many hospitals were bombed - AND - how many "do you know of" that were intentionally bombed without any justification or by mistake ???
How the fuck are you making shit up about what I said or meant then asking me questions based on FALSE assumptions?
If you don't know or believe that a hospital was ever bombed by US forces in Iraq- google it or don't, its up to you.
You see, thats where you wrong but your judgment seems to be clouded by the rest of that bullshit you're spewing.
It would seem that most of the bullshit you say I'm spewing is coming out of your own head
I have no problem saying that I don't believe that we should have invaded Iraq; and I say that based on the information made public, that I am aware of.
Of course, whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq is a rather simple question with complicated answers: did the president of the United States commit to war <u>knowing with substantial certainty</u> that the intelligence suggesting that Iraq had WMD that posed a substantial risk to the U.S. and/or its interest was incorrect or did not suggest the same.
- If there is evidence suggesting Bush acting knowingly, he should be put on trial.
- Until there is a finding that George Bush violated the law, YOUR or my CONCLUSION that the war was illegal is just another navel.
That has zero to do with your defense of Iraqi casualties incurred in Iraq. If you don't believe the war to be bullshit, immoral, based on lies and illegal in regard to international law, that's cool.
Makkonnen said:
How many times have we heard you argue in defense of a criminal who comitted a crime because he was misled and killed some innocent civilians in the process? I can't remember it happening.
Que said:
Oh, so you can read minds now ? ? ?
Read minds? How many times have you done it on this board? Its a real question. Is BGOL your fuckin mind now?
wtf bruh
I have to read your mind to know whether or not you defended a murderer on this board? How exactly does that work out? You had a hidden intent to defend someone in some thread?
Cmon.
Are we supposed to hear you somewhere else other than here? Did it somehow come off as you never saying it or doing it in your life? How the fuck would I know that and why would I say that. Hey point me to the posts, I definitely don't scan all your posts on here.
Just proof of what I mentioned above. Its not that I don't believe that some of them are; its that you believe that all of them are.
Just proof that you are injecting shit into my replies that wasn't said.
Obviously, you missed the point. They too believe in intermingling their command and control with the civilian population obviously hoping that either locating such assets in the hood will either (1) deter a strike upon them, or (2) give them great PR when the strike occurs.
No you missed the point. Everyone knows those assholes do that shit. The point is you know they do it but despite that you still drop bombs on civilian areas, in other words "fuck the potential civilian casualties we are gonna take them out"
Its a conscious decision to limit your own casualties at the expense of civilians - same shit as Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Problem is, you can't claim to give a fuck about civilians or international law and do that shit.
What's even worse is when you do that to a population you claim is totally held captive to madmen. Just my opinion.
I missed your response to the Nuremburg thing.
I was trying to have a serious convo here but if you dont want that its cool. I only mean what I actually say.
You and others on here defended the invasion from the beginning. I always opposed it. You changed your mind over the years. Do I interpret every remark you say through that lense? It would be bullshit if I did. That's pretty much what you're doing despite the fact that we have had discussions about the fact that I no longer view things in the same manner I did 7 years ago.
