Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[superart]

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

I doub't any killed would give a rats ass about the intentions of their murderer.

I think you need to look "murder" up in the dictionary. Murder is when you deliberately kill a person with malice and predetermined intent.

By its very nature, a death due to collateral damage is the polar opposite of murder, since it contradicts each of those characteristics.


<edit>
Argg, lothar.......
looks like great minds think alike. Some just type faster than others

</edit>

[cybrsamurai]

Lothar I am sorry if I put words in your mouth but that is what you wrote down twice in your post. If I misinterpreted what you trying to say sorry about that.

I have a small point of contention with your analogy.

If I were driving around quickly in order to hit someone that deserves it knowing the possibility and probability of an accident and I hit someone else in the process than I do bear some of the responsibility for that persons death. Of course your definition of murder then has to be applied to this scenario. Some define it by the legality some just by the taking of a humans life.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

Lothar I am sorry if I put words in your mouth but that is what you wrote down twice in your post. If I misinterpreted what you trying to say sorry about that.

I have a small point of contention with your analogy.

If I were driving around quickly in order to hit someone that deserves it knowing the possibility and probability of an accident and I hit someone else in the process than I do bear some of the responsibility for that persons death. Of course your definition of murder then has to be applied to this scenario. Some define it by the legality some just by the taking of a humans life.

No I did not post that try again

Still not murder.

[cybrsamurai]

Art here are your definitions:

To kill (another human) unlawfully. - Yes terrorist committed murder on sept 11. Collateral damage does not fit this definition.

To kill brutally or inhumanly. - I think flying a plane into buildings and crushing and burning people to death qualifies here. Same for collateral damage.

To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
- This one I think is used as slang so doesn't really apply

To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.
- Same here


"Murder is when you deliberately kill a person with malice and predetermined intent."

No murder can be completely involuntary - you eat half a pound of psychedelic mushrooms, and smoke half a pound of PCP. You wig out kill your family wake up remembering nothing. You murdered your family.

You drink 3 beers then drive home on the way home you hit an old lady crossing the road. You are tested for drugs and alcohol you test positive you get charged with murder.

You build a house you disregard all safety regulations knowing the dangers. The house collapses killing 3 people. After investigation you are charged with murder. (Negligent homicide)

[cybrsamurai]

Sorry Loth that was super art that said that.

[superart]

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

If I were driving around quickly in order to hit someone that deserves it knowing the possibility and probability of an accident and I hit someone else in the process than I do bear some of the responsibility for that persons death. Of course your definition of murder then has to be applied to this scenario. Some define it by the legality some just by the taking of a humans life.

If your a farmer and your driving your tractor, harvesting your crops. And someone chooses to ignore the multitude of signs posted throughout the field that read, "!!!!!!!WARNING!!!!!!! TRACTOR COMING THROUGH FIELD. DO NOT ENTER. IF YOU HAVE ALREADY ENTERED PLEASE LEAVE. IT IS DANGEROUS TO STAY IN THIS FIELD" would you be a murderer if you accidentally harvested the guy along with your crop of corn, since the corn is so tall and its hard to see people from all the way up in your tractor. After all, that is why you posted those signs, because you know the corn is so tall and you cant see people from all the way up in your tractor. Are you still a murderer?

[cybrsamurai]

Maybe if you knew that in the process of harvesting your corn you were going to be killing several people. I doubt there is any precident for mass corn harvest deaths. Its really just a matter of how one thinks. It is a concious choice whether or not to harvest the corn. And while I do have a right to harvest my corn I would choose an alternate means in order to avoid ending anyones life.

[superart]

[quote=cybrsamurai]
Art here are your definitions:
To kill brutally or inhumanly. - I think flying a plane into buildings and crushing and burning people to death qualifies here. Same for collateral damage.
[/qoute]
mmmmmmmmm, no, your reasoning here is kinda like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It might fit, but it's not right.

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

"Murder is when you deliberately kill a person with malice and predetermined intent."

No murder can be completely involuntary - you eat half a pound of psychedelic mushrooms, and smoke half a pound of PCP. You wig out kill your family wake up remembering nothing. You murdered your family.

Well, assuming your ****ing superamn, and and dont die after smoking a half a pound of PCP.......
.....IME, If you hurt/kill someone while under the influence of shrooms, that would not be considdered or tried as murder. With halucinagens in particular, if you have a good lawyer, you might even get off as temperary insanity.

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

You drink 3 beers then drive home on the way home you hit an old lady crossing the road. You are tested for drugs and alcohol you test positive you get charged with murder.

no, that would be vehecular manslaughter

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

You build a house you disregard all safety regulations knowing the dangers. The house collapses killing 3 people. After investigation you are charged with murder. (Negligent homicide)

no you would get criminal negligence or involountary manslaughter, not murder

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

Sorry Loth that was super art that said that.

what did i say?

[superart]

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

Maybe if you knew that in the process of harvesting your corn you were going to be killing several people.

That's just it. We don't know. if we did, colateral damage and friendly fire wouldn't happen.

[cybrsamurai]

Art you are just wrong on every account of your legality. If you want i can find cases for each.

We know there will be collateral damage.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

On 9/11, the civilians instead of the world trade centers were the targets. Don't attempt to make a moral equivalence.

I was responding to "this is really war. and in war there will be calateral damage. thats just life..." Callous, don't you think? I don't see how it can't offend 9/11 families. They took "collateral damage" in this war of terror (declared loud and clear by both sides well before 9/11), did they not? If we deny 9/11 caused collateral damage by insisting everyone rippled by a military action is a target, then our generals may as well just shut their eyes and stick pins in a spinning globe. Anyway, superart has explained himself, or not.

About moral equivalence. Well. Without first holding others to basic equality with oneself, and then rating their acts against one's own standards (or acts), how does one pass judgement? Do you "just know"? Does a little voice tell you? No, especially the worst of men deserve real justice in all its terrible comprehension of their place among us. You can't weigh them in isolation. Scales of Justice, you know? As it is we're helping them evade justice, and die not like judged human beings, but like lions, thanks to the moral cowardice of those who evade the scales themselves.

"Don't attempt to make a moral equivalence." Now you tell me why not, Lothar5150.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Freedom and democracy are the magic words. However, you don’t have to allow foreign-born people participate in your system.

But sovereign countries must allow foreign fighters, in the name of Freedom and Democracy? Revolutionary invaders plowing through borders for causes other than Freedom and Democracy are the bad guys?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

The only obligation of a democratic election is to provide an opportunity to vote and participate. Individuals may chose not to participate, but that does not make the process illegitimate.

300,000 Sunnis out of Falluja will not make it to the local polling stations, or they will boycott the elections, but that will be their choice. Voting with their feet. Let's see if other Sunni cities "choose" not to participate, despite the best military efforts to convince them. Watch this unfold.

Wouldn't it be easier to employ specially constructed "stress position" polling booths in just the pro-Ba'ath party areas? This way voters could more simply "choose" whether or not to participate, and go back to their normal lives. This would cost little to all concerned, and, as you say, would not make the process illegitimate because the electorate had a "choice". No "WTF" please. I'm curious to see how this computes.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Wouldn't you rather shoot dead a few disobedient CBS cameramen than demolish an entire hospital of Iraqis? Surely this could have been arranged.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

WTF are you smoking.

You wanted to stop (unfavourable) propaganda broadcast from the hospitals, especially that bandied by liberal media. Neutralise just the broadcasts or neutralise the whole hospital along with staff and patients, liberal reporters, and perhaps rebels among them. Why can't you grasp this simple choice?

Let's pare it down then. Choose between sacrificing a few Americans in Iraq, vs. a few Iraqis (e.g. collateral damage). If you wish, you may imagine a crucial military objective is at stake, and one nationality or the other has to be sacrificed, civilians all. Don't deny this value. It looms over every strategic decision and a good many combat decisions too. Who is less expendable? The American or the Iraqi? If you answer just one of my questions, answer that one.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

I'm sure one of our predators spotted the insurgents building deliberate defensive positions at the hospital. Look this is an old propaganda trick. Shift the use of a hospital to military use and then call us bad guys when we take it out.

"In what might mark the beginning of a major offensive to reclaim Fallujah, Iraqi special forces stormed the main hospital on the western edge of the city overnight, blindfolding some people and kicking down doors. No shots were fired."

...

"Several hundred Iraqi troops were dispatched into Fallujah's main hospital after U.S. forces sealed off the area. The troops held about 50 men of military age inside the hospital, but about half were later freed.

According to The AP, Dr. Salih al-Issawi, head of the hospital, said he had asked U.S. officers to allow doctors and ambulances go inside the main part of the city to help the injured but they refused.

"The American troops' attempt to take over the hospital was not right because they thought that they would halt medical assistance to the resistance," he said by telephone. "But they did not realize that the hospital does not belong to anybody, especially the resistance."

OK. And now the hospital's been taken. Combatants are defending the hospital. According to you, this sets conditions for "an old propaganda trick". I can just hear the suicide bomber's spokesman, after that hospital gets blown to bricks with a car bomb: "Look this is an old propaganda trick. Shift the use of a hospital to military use and then call us bad guys when we take it out."

Get it? In your confused efforts to rationalise this, you apologise for barbarism. I don't like them either, and it irks me America has become a champion of terrorist values.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Well you got a straight-talking Republic to the south, full of people who don’t bow or scrape to a queen, king or dictator…We are free people down here, I guess you will have to suck it up.

This is good and I admire it. Truly.

Originally Posted by unregistered

what I think is not relevant to its cause, process, or conclusion

I'm pretty sure you know. You understand macro-economics. You know your dollar.

You know the exit conditions.

[superart]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I was responding to "this is really war. and in war there will be calateral damage. thats just life..." Callous, don't you think? I don't see how it can't offend 9/11 families. They took "collateral damage" in this war of terror (declared loud and clear by both sides well before 9/11), did they not? If we deny 9/11 caused collateral damage by insisting everyone rippled by a military action is a target, then our generals may as well just shut their eyes and stick pins in a spinning globe. Anyway, superart has explained himself, or not.

Refer to post 473

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Let's pare it down then. Choose between sacrificing a few Americans in Iraq, vs. a few Iraqis (e.g. collateral damage). If you wish, you may imagine a crucial military objective is at stake, and one nationality or the other has to be sacrificed, civilians all. Don't deny this value. It looms over every strategic decision and a good many combat decisions too. Who is less expendable? The American or the Iraqi? If you answer just one of my questions, answer that one.

If it comes down to an Iraqi civilian or a US troop, I would chooses the troop. He volountered for the job, knowing the risk, and accepted the risk. A choice between an American civilian and an Iraqi civilian, I would choose the Iraqi civilian. Just like if you asked that same question to someone in Iraq, they would say they would prefer an American civilian gets killed over an Iraqi. That's human nature.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

"In what might mark the beginning of a major offensive to reclaim Fallujah, Iraqi special forces stormed the main hospital on the western edge of the city overnight, blindfolding some people and kicking down doors. No shots were fired."

...

"Several hundred Iraqi troops were dispatched into Fallujah's main hospital after U.S. forces sealed off the area. The troops held about 50 men of military age inside the hospital, but about half were later freed.

According to The AP, Dr. Salih al-Issawi, head of the hospital, said he had asked U.S. officers to allow doctors and ambulances go inside the main part of the city to help the injured but they refused.

"The American troops' attempt to take over the hospital was not right because they thought that they would halt medical assistance to the resistance," he said by telephone. "But they did not realize that the hospital does not belong to anybody, especially the resistance."

We secured the hospital w/o firing a shot. What's the problem? Why are you complaining?

How the hell do you know who this Dr. Salih al-Issawi character is? For all you know, he might just be blowing smoke up your ass. Just cus he's a doctor, doesnt mean he's a good guy. Dr. Mendalev was a medical doctor, for all you know, this guy may be no different.

They most likely had their own medical personel attending to the sick/wounded and did not want the locals to get in the way.

It is the policy of the US armed forces to provide medical care to both our own troops as well as any POWs we manage to capture.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

OK. And now the hospital's been taken. Combatants are defending the hospital. According to you, this sets conditions for "an old propaganda trick". I can just hear the suicide bomber's spokesman, after that hospital gets blown to bricks with a car bomb: "Look this is an old propaganda trick. Shift the use of a hospital to military use and then call us bad guys when we take it out."

once again, they are not defending the hospital. They are using it as a staging ground to launch a military offensive from. Once a hospital is used in this fashion, it is no longer just a hospital, but a military base. We do not use our hospitals in such a manner. Not even military hospitals. We have dedicated military bases that we use to launch our military offensives from.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

it irks me America has become a champion of terrorist values.

You are very confused about the real world

Watch the Nicolas Berg video and then tell me who the terrorist are.

[superart]

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

Art you are just wrong on every account of your legality. If you want i can find cases for each.

Go for it. I will bet you dollars to dougnuts though, that if you manage to find it, the guy was using a public defendent. Under such circumstances, the prosecuter wont even charge you with murder unless your'e black and using a public defendant, cus they know with any halfway descent lawyer that shit wont fly.

Originally Posted by cybrsamurai

We know there will be collateral damage.

We know there will be collateral damage because we know that we wont know how to avoid it. If we knew how to avoid them, we would. If for no other reason, bombs and rockets are extremely expensive. We don't want to waste them on militareily insegnificant targets if we can help it. Think about it. Why would the US want to blow up a peacefull hispital where civilians get medical care and has no military value?

[BillA]

Originally Posted by unregistered

with your 20/20 foresight and no distinction as to intent, your forecasts should be most polemic
defining all soldiers as murderers is slick, you have a bright future
and of course "Iraqi" resistance is justified, cutting off the heads of non-combatants is clearly no problem having dismissed intent from the equation

your predictions for Iran please
and also for North Korea as your vision alone will be able to keep everyone else out of trouble

there are reasons why you, and those of your mindset, are not defining the course of government
you guys are morally bankrupt (re-read the last paragraph of your post)

read it again
focus on "intent"
you failed logic (here anyway)
all killers = all murderers; shit logic

and hey, why not address the other questions ?

[superart]

Well, it finally happened.

BillA has snapped.

He's actually having a flame war with himself.

I suppose we should have seen this coming:shrug:

[slavik]

brutal, inhuman, etc???

how do we know when something is "brutal"???

[argument1]
Killing jews is wrong ... but that's not what Nazis believed and if everyone on earth was a nazi, we'd be saying that killing is wrong unless you're killing jews ... think about that for a moment.

BTW, I'm a jew by ancestry (my ancestors were/are jews, but I don't consider myself one)
[/argument1]

[argument2]
Who is a terrorist??? In my definition, a "terrorist" is a person who "terrorises" ... in views of some people "WE" (americans) are terrorists because we are trying to change someone else's way of life or we hate something about them ...

Remember the 100 years war? All christians hated muslims for one reason and one reason alone, it was because they "controlled" jerusalem.

Today the situation is very similar, except that the muslims hate the jews for the same thing. One thing they are forgetting is that the epileptic ferret who founded the whole religion was saved by jews in Medina ... in I believe 13th century (or was it 7th, I don't remember exactly), so if anything muslims should be thanking jews who were in what we call today the middle east WAY before muslims ever appeared and WAY before christians became a giant cult.
[/argument2]

[argument3]
A cult is a religion and a religion is a cult. Look in the Merriam Webster dictionary and you will see they are describing the same thing.
[/argument3]

[superart]

Originally Posted by slavik

brutal, inhuman, etc???
[argument3]
A cult is a religion and a religion is a cult. Look in the Merriam Webster dictionary and you will see they are describing the same thing.
[/argument3]

It's interesting that you should say that, since modern day christianity is really just a compendium of beliefs from many different ancient cults.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by superart

We secured the hospital w/o firing a shot. What's the problem? Why are you complaining?

once again, they are not defending the hospital. They are using it as a staging ground to launch a military offensive from. Once a hospital is used in this fashion, it is no longer just a hospital, but a military base. We do not use our hospitals in such a manner.

My points weren't explicit.

Firstly, that the hospital was secured by US and other foreign fighters without firing a shot is a pretty good indication Fallujan rebels weren't occupying it. We understand those guys to be die hards and suicidal even; there would have been shots fired if they were there. Plainly the rebels decided beforehand to respect the neutrality of the hospital.

Secondly, when I talk about soldiers actually in the hospital, I quote the US commander who says his men are "defending" it. Embedded reporters are now at the hospital with their military handlers; it's become "secured" turf. The offensive proceeds onwards. It is difficult not to see this hospital as a staging point for attacks - not by Fallujans but by the foreign fighters pouring into Falluja.

You say, "We do not use our hospitals in this manner." and that's true. The Falluja General Hospital doesn't belong to Americans. Neither are Fallujans trying to "secure" your hospitals.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Get it? In your confused efforts to rationalise this, you apologise for barbarism. I don't like them either, and it irks me America has become a champion of terrorist values.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

You are very confused about the real world

Watch the Nicolas Berg video and then tell me who the terrorist are.

I'm sure we agree the thugs who killed that guy are terrorists. However, another's wrong does not make one right.

The worst terrorists are those who use horrible acts against civilians to advance a bloody cause. I have not watched the execution video. Are you going to offer me a link, so I'll feel better about the terror war?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I'm sure we agree the thugs who killed that guy are terrorists. However, another's wrong does not make one right.

The worst terrorists are those who use horrible acts against civilians to advance a bloody cause. I have not watched the execution video. Are you going to offer me a link, so I'll feel better about the terror war?

I am sure if you Google the kids name you can find a link...by the way it is not an execution, it is unambiguously murder. I will warn you in advance, you will not feel right for a very long time once you watch it. However, sometimes people like you need a does of hard reality. So that you understand that the only thing standing between you and the fate that befell Nick Burg are the Marines and Iraqi Soliders fighting in Falujah right now.

[Kobuchi]

I think we're speaking different languages. My last question - if you'd like me to taste terror - was rhetorical. No, I prefer not feed my own fear and hatred thank you.

Some farmers grow opium poppies. Then there must be processors, packagers, distributors. Then the pushers on the street. Then finally the consumers. No thanks. I trade many things with many people, but I'm not in the business of trading gore and horror with Iraqi teenagers.

I guess you feel the world is a nasty place, and people want to hurt you. Nick Berg, one out of six billion, embodies the fate I'm sure to suffer if not for the vigour of US artillery abroad. I understand where you're coming from.

That's all.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I think we're speaking different languages. My last question - if you'd like me to taste terror - was rhetorical. No, I prefer not feed my own fear and hatred thank you.

Some farmers grow opium poppies. Then there must be processors, packagers, distributors. Then the pushers on the street. Then finally the consumers. No thanks. I trade many things with many people, but I'm not in the business of trading gore and horror with Iraqi teenagers.

Yes, I speak plainly. I don’t attempt to use outlandish metaphors in order to make myself sound intelligent.

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

I guess you feel the world is a nasty place, and people want to hurt you. Nick Berg, one out of six billion, embodies the fate I'm sure to suffer if not for the vigour of US artillery abroad. I understand where you're coming from.
That's all.

Kobuchi, I don’t "feel" the world is a nasty place...I know it is nasty place based on experience. While, most people I have meet on this planet are good, others will not think twice about doing you or your family harm. Honestly, you speak like someone who has never left the safety of BC. Your problem here is your assumptions about people. Most people like you think that all people are essentially good. What you should understand is that most people are essentially good but not all.

[BillA]

L5
I disagree
I believe it is the veneer of civilization that restrains some, others require the inhibition of police on-call, others do what they think they can get away with

remove effective/honest police from the equation and there is a huge shift in the size of the groups towards lawlessness

I do not think that people are 'good', I think they can choose to act 'good' - a very different thing

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by unregistered

L5
I disagree
I believe it is the veneer of civilization that restrains some, others require the inhibition of police on-call, others do what they think they can get away with

remove effective/honest police from the equation and there is a huge shift in the size of the groups towards lawlessness

I do not think that people are 'good', I think they can choose to act 'good' - a very different thing

I use term 'good' but don’t think that means people don't do things based on self-interest. I personally think that everyone operates on some level of self-interest. For 'good' people, self-interest is avoiding guilt from brought on by empathy. 'Bad' people often lack the empathy or have it severely suppressed in some way. The latter group will need the restraint of law or simply will not care at all about law. However, I think that most humans fall into the former group. I’ve been and seen humans at their most base animal level, people jump on grenades to avoid the guilt of letting a down a buddy…not to survive.

....I think this is a philosophical point best discussed over beers

[BillA]

aiiiii
more than one I suspect
Sat it is