Thread: Islam Ctr Planned Next to Ground Zero

Originally Posted by Pol the Pot

The US and NATO never target civilians. It's in the ROE. Prove me wrong.

I'm not so sure about that.

The Taliban they catch aren't given 'prisoner of war' status, so they pretty much are civilians.

Never heard that. I'll check with the Troops. The major prob they tell me is that other "villagers" take the guns/explosives/ammo away from the men, women, and children who were attacking, so it appears that these attackers were civilians. The left-wing and the mozzies suck up that sh*t.

If they were given PoW status they'd have to be let go at some time or other via a third country, they'd have to be treated as proper combatants, the regular RoE as set down by the Geneva conventions and the Haag Landwarfare Rules. They aren't though, wouldn't work for the coalition.

I think in Germany they don't even call it 'war', I don't know whether they're still using their old 'commissar order' or what. They should be kicked out of the inner circle, never know when they'll start rounding up the Jes in Afghanistan or something, then the coalition will have a real problem explaining

Direct bombs probably aren't the main cause of civilian deaths in Iraq (and that includes suicide bombs). Most of the civilian deaths were due to UN sanctions before the war and the large amount of depleted uranium used in the weapons, and the resulting cancers from it. There was a lot of "collateral damage" from the bombs as well. The coalition has outdone Saddam by a long way.

Originally Posted by pickel

Direct bombs probably aren't the main cause of civilian deaths in Iraq (and that includes suicide bombs). Most of the civilian deaths were due to UN sanctions before the war and the large amount of depleted uranium used in the weapons, and the resulting cancers from it. There was a lot of "collateral damage" from the bombs as well. The coalition has outdone Saddam by a long way.

Its difficult to separate and attribute the "direct cause of civilian deaths" against "indirect causes". Sanctions certainly caused a lot of deaths and suffering among the civilian population in Iran, as they were intended to do in the hope of stirring an internal civilian revolt. Just as they are intended to stir up internal dissent in Iran and North Korea. A strategy that has proven to be a hopeless failure in removing particular strong arm governments deemed to be a threat to US interests. All it does is to punish civilians and drive such governments to devote more of their countries resources towards military defence against outside pressure. Which of course means a ramping up of security against internal dissent and resources diverted towards the military in order to fend off the threat of foreign invasion. All of which leaves the civilian population as the meat in the sandwich being squeezed from both outside sanctions and a domestic government preoccupied with survival against both internal and external threats.

Re the depleted uranium left laying around in Iraq, -- sure the Yanks knew the long term consequences to the Iranian people. They knew it was going to cause immense suffering to the civilian population with birth defects for years to come.
How many US voters really give a shit how many Iranian kids are born with gross birth defects, or die of cancer before they have a chance to grow up?
If that kind of toxic stuff was left spread around the ground in USA there would be massive public voter outrage. But this is somebody elses country, so I guess it doesnt matter to the US public at large, --- so long as they get a quick fix to the problem of body bags coming home.

Same with cluster bombs and land mines. US land mines and unexploded cluster bombs are still killing and maiming civilians in Laos and Cambodia 40 years after the Vietnam war. The US knew the long term consequences of their actions when they laid the mines and dropped the cluster bombs. But hey, they could afford to sacrifice a few sub-human gooks in a far away land for the benefit of the US global empire. Interestingly, USA, along with their global competitors China and Russia are the only countries not to agree to ban land mines and cluster bombs.

Perhaps if the people of USA had to live with depleted uranium fragments spread around their communities, or land mines and unexploded cluster bombs in the fields where their kids play, oh an lets not forget agent orange;-- perhaps, just perhaps, they might have a different perspective on what they are expecting other people around the word to accept as "acceptable", in US interests of course. ?

I've just found a large building in New York designed using Islamic principles but now removed. I assume Jet will be supporting the action of removing it.

LINK

Originally Posted by pickel

Direct bombs probably aren't the main cause of civilian deaths in Iraq (and that includes suicide bombs). Most of the civilian deaths were due to UN sanctions before the war and the large amount of depleted uranium used in the weapons, and the resulting cancers from it. There was a lot of "collateral damage" from the bombs as well. The coalition has outdone Saddam by a long way.

Not that I don't believe you, Professor, but can we have some sources?

Re: post #129.

A world-view that we could use a lot more of over here.
Greens X10 if I could.

Originally Posted by MrG

Re: post #129.

A world-view that we could use a lot more of over here.
Greens X10 if I could.

Post # 129:

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ *sob* Of course no Taleban killed any innocents. Oh, and please remind me, how many Kurds did Hussein kill?

Why, thank you, mrG.

I really thought Jet would be happy that a symbol of the slow, discreet creep of Islam into western lives was demolished.
Ho hum, I won't be trying to please her again.

When Saddam was in charge he only killed his enemies. Now the Yanks are in charge they are killing both their enemies and the innocents. Same same Afghanistan. In a competition to see who can kill the most people, I reckon the Yanks would be in front in both places. From one brutal, corrupt dictator to another. Only difference is the new dictator pretends to support democracy.

There are few things more demoralising and psychologically demanding for an Officer cadre' than being pre-empted, because of an Oath they took, to provide Leadership for a Mission that they do not really believe in. Like many other Professions, that is handled via prefessional detachment and a certain esprit de corps. One has to be a bit detached when you know smart bombs are actually not that smart or selective, or that some of the men you command you are sending to their grave.

It makes me think about the lack of choice a person has in quitting their job in the military. It's not easy to get out of duty once things start happening. It's not like leaving a job. In a time of real immediate threats to a nation a society wouldn't want anyone to leave but in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan the threat wasn't as imminent or as threatening. The oath itself is pre-emptive. It's used as a way to keep troops when the cause is controversial and the imminent threat really isn't there. The oath and all the propaganda stereotypes (unpatriotic, deserter, traitor, coward)connected to soldiers who don't want to go to 'war' work well to make keep soldiers in line who question the legitimacy of what they are about to be a part of.

Originally Posted by PaulBunyon

It makes me think about the lack of choice a person has in quitting their job in the military. It's not easy to get out of duty once things start happening. It's not like leaving a job. In a time of real immediate threats to a nation a society wouldn't want anyone to leave but in cases like Iraq and Afghanistan the threat wasn't as imminent or as threatening. The oath itself is pre-emptive. It's used as a way to keep troops when the cause is controversial and the imminent threat really isn't there. The oath and all the propaganda stereotypes (unpatriotic, deserter, traitor, coward)connected to soldiers who don't want to go to 'war' work well to make keep soldiers in line who question the legitimacy of what they are about to be a part of.

The troops out on the battle front are just cannon fodder for the politicans and their financial backers back in some safe air conditioned office. No point even pondering the lot of the boys at the cutting edge. They just do what they are told as they are trained to do. Soldiers aren't allowed to have an opinion on whats right or wrong, whats ethical or not. They sign up to get paid for following orders is all. Been the same all through out history and is not going to change now.

^^
This is things you have to consider before you sign up as a professional Soldier, you have to trust that you live in a society who's leaders by some considerable margin most likely would not ask you to do things where the legitimacy seen from your side could ever be questioned.

You can not have Soldiers who hand pick what fights they want to be part of seen from their narrow subjective viewpoint, or Firefighters who will only fight certain fires, Police who will only follow certain personally handpicked laws ect, when you have sworn an oath you are stuck with it.

In other words you are required to think before you sign on the dotted line, after that you have pretty much signed off your right to ask questions, thats why I probably would never myself sign up to be a soldier in any superpower, it sort of historically comes with the territory that questionable interventions is likely.

In my home country you not only have to sign up as a soldier, but you also further more will be asked if you will sign up for international operations, so this way there is possibility to serve in the forces without being part of international operations on behalf of UN or in the case of Afghanistan the coalition forces, on the other hand once you have signed twice there really is no excuse and no easy way out.

Historically I do know of some examples where such very questionable orders where given, but then it would not just be a few walking out but a mass-exodus, like refusing to follow orders from a foreign occupation-force after a surrender, refusing to participate in coup's ect.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

^^
This is things you have to consider before you sign up as a professional Soldier, you have to trust that you live in a society who's leaders by some considerable margin most likely would not ask you to do things where the legitimacy seen from your side could ever be questioned.

You can not have Soldiers who hand pick what fights they want to be part of seen from their narrow subjective viewpoint, or Firefighters who will only fight certain fires, Police who will only follow certain personally handpicked laws ect, when you have sworn an oath you are stuck with it.

In other words you are required to think before you sign on the dotted line, after that you have pretty much signed off your right to ask questions, thats why I probably would never myself sign up to be a soldier in any superpower, it sort of historically comes with the territory that questionable interventions is likely.

In my home country you not only have to sign up as a soldier, but you also further more will be asked if you will sign up for international operations, so this way there is possibility to serve in the forces without being part of international operations on behalf of UN or in the case of Afghanistan the coalition forces, on the other hand once you have signed twice there really is no excuse and no easy way out.

Historically I do know of some examples where such very questionable orders where given, but then it would not just be a few walking out but a mass-exodus, like refusing to follow orders from a foreign occupation-force after a surrender, refusing to participate in coup's ect.

Larv, get real. Soldiers are not required to think. They get paid and trained to blindly follow orders without question. Thats just the way it works in the military. Always has and always will be. A big part of any soldiers basic training is not just to build up physical fitness, but also to break down any individualistic attitudes.
The army does not need soldiers who think for themselves, they need individuals who will walk over a hill and get get mowed down by machine gun fire if ordered to do so.

Carrying out questionable ethical duties away from the heat of battle is another matter where personal ethics might come into play. But the bottom line in any army is that soldiers are trained and expected to carry out orders without question.

It all gets a little bit tricky when a soldier knows what he is doing is wrong. In which case such a soldier may be shot dead without much investigation if he refuses unethical orders. It aint main street with the same security of a justice system out at the cutting edge on the battle front.

I feel for the soldiers who have bucked the system on moral grounds. The whistle blowers who expose atrocities and gross unethical military practices. But generally such people are painted as unpatriotic cowards and usually end up as victims rather than heroes.

Oh my god,….a Mosque in the Pentagon? Walter Reed?

Originally Posted by Panda

Larv, get real. Soldiers are not required to think. They get paid and trained to blindly follow orders without question. Thats just the way it works in the military.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Panda you will have to limit yourself to the things you know.

Sorry, Larv, PandyBear is correct. A soldier's main job is to follow orders, whether he/she thinks them right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

Originally Posted by Panda

Larv, get real. Soldiers are not required to think. They get paid and trained to blindly follow orders without question. Thats just the way it works in the military.

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Panda you will have to limit yourself to the things you know.

Sorry, Larv, PandyBear is correct. A soldier's main job is to follow orders, whether he/she thinks them right or wrong.

Good on ya Jet for sticking up for me. I hate it when hes right!

^ You must admit, Larv is right most of the time, Pandy. In this case, I had to differ and *horror* back your opinion. Despite what most folks think, I don't follow a party/discipline/ideological line. I think fer meself. *hic*
I expect a string of green jellybeans from you.

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ You must admit, Larv is right most of the time, Pandy. In this case, I had to differ and *horror* back your opinion. Despite what most folks think, I don't follow a party/discipline/ideological line. I think fer meself. *hic*
I expect a string of green jellybeans from you.

And he's right in this case as well.

Training in European armies (not all but certainly in the Central and Northern European armies and the Benelux armies) does emphasize the individual responsibility of the individual soldier. I would also guess that most are told that they actually can disregard and ignore unlawful orders.

This idea of breaking down and rebuilding individuals is something very American, not saying it's the wrong or the right way to do things.

Originally Posted by Pol the Pot

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

^ You must admit, Larv is right most of the time, Pandy. In this case, I had to differ and *horror* back your opinion. Despite what most folks think, I don't follow a party/discipline/ideological line. I think fer meself. *hic*
I expect a string of green jellybeans from you.

And he's right in this case as well.

Training in European armies (not all but certainly in the Central and Northern European armies and the Benelux armies) does emphasize the individual responsibility of the individual soldier. I would also guess that most are told that they actually can disregard and ignore unlawful orders.

This idea of breaking down and rebuilding individuals is something very American, not saying it's the wrong or the right way to do things.

Soldiers thinking for themselves and disobeying unlawful orders. What will it be next? Smart bombs that only kill the baddies and leave the civilians untouched?

Originally Posted by Pol the Pot

Training in European armies (not all but certainly in the Central and Northern European armies and the Benelux armies) does emphasize the individual responsibility of the individual soldier. I would also guess that most are told that they actually can disregard and ignore unlawful orders.

You would guess? What is an unlawful order? Actually firing your gun and killing the enemy? OK, then I guess that's why most Euro nations don't have troops in NATO. (Should we forgive Spain, seeing as how the terrorists blew up their trains, so they promised not to fight?) Pussies. You disobey an order, you are court-martialled. End of story.