patrick.net

Yes it is.
Therefore, Hillary, Pelosi, Reed et al should be hanged by the throat in capital punishment states, or celled with chuck manson in the more feebler states.

Blurtman says

Is It Murder to Kill Civilians in the Invasion of a Country Based Upon Lies?

It's only murder if the intent was to kill innocent women an children.
Otherwise it's collateral damage.

SoftShell says

Yes it is.

Therefore, Hillary, Pelosi, Reed et al should be hanged by the throat in capital punishment states, or celled with chuck manson in the more feebler states.

Leaving out the entire Bush administration completely discredits you.

Blurtman says

Is It Murder to Kill Civilians in the Invasion of a Country Based Upon Lies?

Yes. It's murder to kill anyone deliberately without their permission. When two soldiers fight and one kills another, it is by definition murder.

Murder has nothing to do with legality. When soldier from country A kills soldier from country B, country A calls it legal while country B calls it illegal. The same act isn't both murder and not murder simultaneously depending on where you are. Hence, we must separate the question of legality from the definition of murder.

Murder is simply the intentional killing of a person without his or her permission. Murder is always an evil. It might be a justifiable evil; it might be the lesser of two evils; but it is always evil. Don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise. The deliberate destruction of a sentient being against its will is always evil.

Strategist says

It's only murder if the intent was to kill innocent women an children.

Otherwise it's collateral damage.

I take it that you are being sarcastic there.

If a person deliberately launches a missile from an Apache failing to refrain due to the possibility that a non-combatant may be killed and one is, not only is the person who fired the missile guilty of murder, but he is also guilty of targeting on-combatants, a war crime. Apathy is not an excuse for killing non-combatants even if a soldier isn't specifically targeting them.

Here's an analogy. Joe is carelessly tossing live grenades into a park for shits and giggles. He's not targeting anyone and has no intent to kill anyone, but isn't terribly concerned if people die either. After all shit happens. It turns out that a dozen children are killed by Joe's grenades. Joe is most definitely guilty of murder regardless of whether or not his actions are or are judged to be guilty by the court system.

Which is why I left out the bush administration and included the rest....
Dan8267 says

The deliberate destruction of a sentient being against its will is always evil.

Dan8267 says

eaving out the entire Bush administration completely discredits you

It is impossible to discredit someone who is already at zero credibility.

Rep/Con/Teas might wait to decide until that shit come here. Stop!I forgot that Merica is immune to attack & the greatest nation in the history of the universe;past,present,future.

9-11 NEVER HAPPENED, thanks Bush/Reps.

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

Bullshit.
If I am at zero credibility, and I borrow some of yours, then that puts me into a negative credibility situation until I pay you back.
Idiot.

bob2356 says

Dan8267 says

eaving out the entire Bush administration completely discredits you

It is impossible to discredit someone who is already at zero credibility.

No one can comment on Patnet unless they have negative or at least zero credibility.
I seem to have met the minimum standards.

HEY YOU just trolled his own ass.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

It's only murder if the intent was to kill innocent women an children.


Otherwise it's collateral damage.

I take it that you are being sarcastic there.

Hell no. I meant every single word.
Dan8267 says

If a person deliberately launches a missile from an Apache failing to refrain due to the possibility that a non-combatant may be killed and one is, not only is the person who fired the missile guilty of murder, but he is also guilty of targeting on-combatants, a war crime. Apathy is not an excuse for killing non-combatants even if a soldier isn't specifically targeting them.

So all wars is murder.

Dan8267 says

Here's an analogy. Joe is carelessly tossing live grenades into a park for shits and giggles. He's not targeting anyone and has no intent to kill anyone, but isn't terribly concerned if people die either. After all shit happens. It turns out that a dozen children are killed by Joe's grenades. Joe is most definitely guilty of murder regardless of whether or not his actions are or are judged to be guilty by the court system.

Joe is guilty of murder. We, however, are not, because we are not in Afghanistan for "shits and giggles"
Nice analogy, but let me give you a real life example:
In the mid or late 1930's there was talk about stopping Hitler. The reasoning was, 10,000 people would die, so the allies did nothing. By the end of the war 60 million had died.
So my question to you, Dan, is...If the decision was up to you, would you stop Hitler and murder 10,000 people, or would you not stop him on time and murder 60 million people?

So we are talking about the invasion of Iraq. And it was no surprise that civilians would be blown to bits and burned alive during the invasion and subsequent aggression. That's what happens. Women, the elderly and children always die. And as it was known that this would be the case, and as the rationale was wrong and based upon lies, then women, children and elderly civilians were intentionally killed. That would seem to fit the definition of evil. And war crimes, too.

Blurtman says

So we are talking about the invasion of Iraq. And it was no surprise that civilians would be blown to bits and burned alive during the invasion and subsequent aggression. That's what happens. Women, the elderly and children always die. And as it was known that this would be the case, and as the rationale was wrong and based upon lies, then women, children and elderly civilians were intentionally killed. That would seem to fit the definition of evil. And war crimes, too.

We screwed up on Iraq, so lets move on and stop beating a dead horse.

Strategist says

We screwed up on Iraq, so lets move on and stop beating a dead horse.

The "dead horse" (otherwise known as possibly the worst foreign policy mistake in American history) may be getting ready to beat us.

bob2356 says

Dan8267 says

eaving out the entire Bush administration completely discredits you

It is impossible to discredit someone who is already at zero credibility.

I stand corrected.

Strategist says

So my question to you, Dan, is...If the decision was up to you, would you stop Hitler and murder 10,000 people, or would you not stop him on time and murder 60 million people?

Obviously I would go with the path of least evil, which if your assumptions are correct (and that's debatable) would be to murder Hitler and the 10,000 people to stop the murders of 60 million others.

However, traveling back in time to kill Hitler could make things worse. Times were ripe for a führer and if not Hitler, it could have been someone much more competent. If a dictator with more intelligence and military leadership skill than Hitler came into power as a result of a time traveler assassinating Hitler before he came into power, then the Nazis could have easily won the war and/or develop nuclear weapons.

SoftShell says

Therefore, Hillary, Pelosi, Reed et al should be hanged by the throat in capital punishment states, or celled with chuck manson in the more feebler states.

I vote for using this machine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfsMMVgIToA

SoftShell says

Bullshit.

If I am at zero credibility, and I borrow some of yours, then that puts me into a negative credibility situation until I pay you back.

Idiot.

Wow, I'm back in third grade.

Strategist says

We screwed up on Iraq, so lets move on and stop beating a dead horse.

"Let's not go on bickerin' about who killed whom!"

"We" did not screw up. Those who supported the invasion screwed up.

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

Strategist says

We screwed up on Iraq, so lets move on and stop beating a dead horse.

"Let's not go on bickerin' about who killed whom!"

"We" did not screw up. Those who supported the invasion screwed up.

While I appreciate the admission that we screwed up, innocent people were killed, and killed horribly, for no good reason. For the good of the nation, those responsible must be held accountable, especially those who joked about the rationale for the war that led to this murder.

The surprise is that you are surprised.
We aren't.

bob2356 says

Wow, I'm back in third grade.

Dan8267 says

Obviously I would go with the path of least evil

So why are you not going along with the path of least evil by supporting drones killing off known terrorists?

Blurtman says

HuggyBumbers McLovkins says

Strategist says

We screwed up on Iraq, so lets move on and stop beating a dead horse.

"Let's not go on bickerin' about who killed whom!"

"We" did not screw up. Those who supported the invasion screwed up.

While I appreciate the admission that we screwed up, innocent people were killed, and killed horribly, for no good reason. For the good of the nation, those responsible must be held accountable, especially those who joked about the rationale for the war that led to this murder.

Congress voted to invade Iraq for a regime change. They deserve a ZERO approval rating.
Or better, let's start sharpening that old guillotine.

Strategist says

Dan8267 says

Obviously I would go with the path of least evil

So why are you not going along with the path of least evil by supporting drones killing off known terrorists?

1. None of my posts in this thread suggests what you are saying. Coincidentally, you are correct in your conclusion, but you should not have reached that conclusion from my statements in this thread. Although in other threads I may have expressed this judgement.

2. My statements in this thread simply say that murder is always an evil, not that there are no situations where it is the path of least evil.

3. I am not for drone strikes as they are being operated by the Obama administration because for every alleged terrorist killed by a drone strike, 10 to 50 innocent people including children are killed

Proponents of the drone war, including President Barack Obama, claim that drone strikes are precise and only target terrorists. But a study from Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute finds that the number of Pakistani civilians killed in drone strikes is “significantly and consistently underestimated" and that as many as 98% of those killed by drone strikes are civilians.

While it is ultimately impossible to get exact numbers, this means that for every "terrorist" killed by a drone strike, anywhere between 10 and 50 civilians are killed.

Read that sentence again. Let it sink in.

How many of those are children? A new study compiled from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism lays it bare:

PAKISTAN

Name | Age | Gender

Noor Aziz | 8 | male
Abdul Wasit | 17 | male
Noor Syed | 8 | male
Wajid Noor | 9 | male
Syed Wali Shah | 7 | male
Ayeesha | 3 | female
Qari Alamzeb | 14| male
Shoaib | 8 | male
Hayatullah KhaMohammad | 16 | male
Tariq Aziz | 16 | male
Sanaullah Jan | 17 | male
Maezol Khan | 8 | female
Nasir Khan | male
Naeem Khan | male
Naeemullah | male
Mohammad Tahir | 16 | male
Azizul Wahab | 15 | male
Fazal Wahab | 16 | male
Ziauddin | 16 | male
Mohammad Yunus | 16 | male
Fazal Hakim | 19 | male
Ilyas | 13 | male
Sohail | 7 | male
Asadullah | 9 | male
khalilullah | 9 | male
Noor Mohammad | 8 | male
Khalid | 12 | male
Saifullah | 9 | male
Mashooq Jan | 15 | male
Nawab | 17 | male
Sultanat Khan | 16 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 13 | male
Noor Mohammad | 15 | male
Mohammad Yaas Khan | 16 | male
Qari Alamzeb | 14 | male
Ziaur Rahman | 17 | male
Abdullah | 18 | male
Ikramullah Zada | 17 | male
Inayatur Rehman | 16 | male
Shahbuddin | 15 | male
Yahya Khan | 16 |male
Rahatullah |17 | male
Mohammad Salim | 11 | male
Shahjehan | 15 | male
Gul Sher Khan | 15 | male
Bakht Muneer | 14 | male
Numair | 14 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Taseel Khan | 18 | male
Zaheeruddin | 16 | male
Qari Ishaq | 19 | male
Jamshed Khan | 14 | male
Alam Nabi | 11 | male
Qari Abdul Karim | 19 | male
Rahmatullah | 14 | male
Abdus Samad | 17 | male
Siraj | 16 | male
Saeedullah | 17 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Salman | 12 | male
Fazal Wahab | 18 | male
Baacha Rahman | 13 | male
Wali-ur-Rahman | 17 | male
Iftikhar | 17 | male
Inayatullah | 15 | male
Mashooq Khan | 16 | male
Ihsanullah | 16 | male
Luqman | 12 | male
Jannatullah | 13 | male
Ismail | 12 | male
Abdul Waris | 16 | male
Darvesh | 13 | male
Ameer Said | 15 | male
Shaukat | 14 | male
Inayatur Rahman | 17 | male
Adnan | 16 | male
Najibullah | 13 | male
Naeemullah | 17 | male
Hizbullah | 10 | male
Kitab Gul | 12 | male
Wilayat Khan | 11 | male
Zabihullah | 16 | male
Shehzad Gul | 11 | male
Shabir | 15 | male
Qari Sharifullah | 17 | male
Shafiullah | 16 | male
Nimatullah | 14 | male
Shakirullah | 16 | male
Talha | 8 | male

YEMEN

Afrah Ali Mohammed Nasser | 9 | female
Zayda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 7 | female
Hoda Ali Mohammed Nasser | 5 | female
Sheikha Ali Mohammed Nasser | 4 | female
Ibrahim Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 13 | male
Asmaa Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 9 | male
Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female
Fatima Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 3 | female
Khadije Ali Mokbel Louqye | 1 | female
Hanaa Ali Mokbel Louqye | 6 | female
Mohammed Ali Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | male
Jawass Mokbel Salem Louqye | 15 | female
Maryam Hussein Abdullah Awad | 2 | female
Shafiq Hussein Abdullah Awad | 1 | female
Sheikha Nasser Mahdi Ahmad Bouh | 3 | female
Maha Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 12 | male
Soumaya Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 9 | female
Shafika Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 4 | female
Shafiq Mohammed Saleh Mohammed | 2 | male
Mabrook Mouqbal Al Qadari | 13 | male
Daolah Nasser 10 years | 10 | female
AbedalGhani Mohammed Mabkhout | 12 | male
Abdel- Rahman Anwar al Awlaki | 16 | male
Abdel-Rahman al-Awlaki | 17 | male
Nasser Salim | 19

That's a hell of a lot of evil for an allege path of least evil.

4. A bit out of scope of our discussion, but relevant to the big picture... I believe that whenever the use of violence is the path of least evil, it is because an earlier opportunity to solve a problem without violence was missed.

For example, instead of traveling back in time to assassinate Hitler and other key Nazi leaders and risk an even worse (more successful) tyrant winning WWII, one could instead travel back to the end of WWI and show the French the devastation they would face if they punished Germany for WWI instead of accepting Wilson's Fourteen Points. Changing history at this point would have prevented Hitler or any tyrant from rising to power as well as other suffering.

Dan8267 says

1. None of my posts in this thread suggests what you are saying. Coincidentally, you are correct in your conclusion, but you should not have reached that conclusion from my statements in this thread. Although in other threads I may have expressed this judgement.

Yes, I believe that is how I arrived at my conclusion.

Dan8267 says

3. I am not for drone strikes as they are being operated by the Obama administration because for every alleged terrorist killed by a drone strike, 10 to 50 innocent people including children are killed

You just said you would take the least evil path.
When you go after terrorists, innocent people are bound to die. The idea is to prevent even more deaths. When Pakistan goes after their terrorists even more innocent people end up dying, as their weapons are not as sophisticated and accurate as ours. Are you saying it's OK for them to have collateral damage, but not us? Because I don't hear anyone complaining when they end up killing innocent people. Does it really matter who kills the terrorists, as long as they are killed?
A small war to prevent a big war can never be bad. Humanity is much better off.

Dan8267 says

4. A bit out of scope of our discussion, but relevant to the big picture... I believe that whenever the use of violence is the path of least evil, it is because an earlier opportunity to solve a problem without violence was missed.

I agree, but we cannot go back in time to change history. We can, however, change the future for the better. Lets learn from history and not repeat it, expecting a different result each time.

Strategist says

innocent people are bound to die. The idea is to prevent even more deaths.

If it was your family that was the "innocent sacrifice" would you be so philosophical?

Robert Sproul says

Strategist says

innocent people are bound to die. The idea is to prevent even more deaths.

If it was your family that was the "innocent sacrifice" would you be so philosophical?

In that scenario I would get biased and speak out against drone strikes. As that has not happened I can still be rational.
My question to you is...if it was your family that was the victim of a terrorist strike that could have been prevented with a drone strike, would you still be against them?

thunderlips11 says

Remember, most innocent people dying in these countries is due to Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up at weddings and funerals.
There are no American suicide bombers.

Blurtman says

Johns Hopkins epidemiologists concluded that 100,000 mostly women, children and elderly were killed during the opening invasion itself.

That's roughly equivalent to one raid on Toyko in WW2!

Kill one person and you're a murderer. Kill a hundred people and you're a psychopath. Kill ten thousand people and you're a warlord. Kill a hundred thousand people and you're a king. Kill ten million people and you're a legend.

Strategist says

When you go after terrorists, innocent people are bound to die.

Prove it. I don't buy into the argument that fighting terrorism requires the deaths of innocents and certainly not to the degree to which the U.S. military has done so.

If anything, I would argue that the deaths of innocents causes terrorism. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighters. According to the USA Patriot Act, George Washington and the other founding fathers were terrorists.

If our goal is to prevent terrorism, then we have to think how we would react if someone blew up an elementary school killing hundreds of our children. Then we must realize that other people would react the exact same way when we do this to them. Terrorist is a label used to dehumanize other people. It's no different than the Nazis referring to Jews as rats and criminals.

During the Holocaust, Nazis referred to Jews as rats. Hutus involved in the Rwanda genocide called Tutsis cockroaches. Slave owners throughout history considered slaves subhuman animals. In Less Than Human, David Livingstone Smith argues that it's important to define and describe dehumanization, because it's what opens the door for cruelty and genocide.

"We all know, despite what we see in the movies," Smith tells NPR's Neal Conan, "that it's very difficult, psychologically, to kill another human being up close and in cold blood, or to inflict atrocities on them." So, when it does happen, it can be helpful to understand what it is that allows human beings "to overcome the very deep and natural inhibitions they have against treating other people like game animals or vermin or dangerous predators."

Thinking sets the agenda for action, and thinking of humans as less than human paves the way for atrocity. The Nazis were explicit about the status of their victims. They were Untermenschen — subhumans — and as such were excluded from the system of moral rights and obligations that bind humankind together. It's wrong to kill a person, but permissible to exterminate a rat. To the Nazis, all the Jews, Gypsies and others were rats: dangerous, disease-carrying rats.

That's exactly how many in our country portray human beings they label as terrorists. And that's all the word terrorist is, a god-damn label used to circumvent reason and specific evidence.

thunderlips11 says

Well said. One of the largest problems with our society is that most Americans value only American lives. The rest of the world is irrelevant to them.

Strategist says

In that scenario I would get biased and speak out against drone strikes. As that has not happened I can still be rational.

A valid point. However, you are neglecting your bias due to the fact that you live in the country using the drone strikes and not the country enduring the drone strikes.

Strategist says

Remember, most innocent people dying in these countries is due to Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up at weddings and funerals.

There are no American suicide bombers.

Yes, religion is bad and it causes people to do evil things. However, the evil done by Al Qaeda does not justify the evil done by the U.S. You might as well say that Al Qaeda killed some Americans, so it's fine for anyone to gun down Americans. Same logic.

As for suicide bombing, that just means the enemy is braver. Suicide bombings are evil because they are bombings and kill others, not because of the suicide.

Americans prefer to kill safely from a distance by pushing a button. That's cowardly. Smart perhaps, but cowardly. So our killing style is nothing to brag about. Switch technological levels and the U.S. would be using guerrilla tactics like it did during the American Revolution and Al Qaeda would be killing Americans from 10 miles away with Apache helicopters. The difference between the warfare techniques is due to the asymmetric technology and infrastructure.

Now I will say that the people in our society overall are more moral than the people in the Middle East, but that is due primarily to the fact that science has quelled religion in our society allowing rational minds to prevail. Religion causes immorality, whereas rational thought and naturalism advances morality. That said, the most immoral part of our society is the warfare industry.

Drone strikes kill innocents because Intelligence uses almost wholly SIM card locators. All those billions upon billions, and we have no HUMINT to confirm or provide more detail, because we're Americans and think Technology is the answer to any and all problems.

The problem is most cell phones in the 3rd World are Paygo, and people swap phones all around.

When the drone reaches the area of the SIM card, instead of a terror meeting, it's a wedding. Perhaps a nephew of a terrorist is a guest at the wedding, and he borrowed one of his Uncles cell phones. Hellfire Away, right into the face of the 5 year old and dozens of other innocents!

"Why do they hate us? Must be because of our Freedom(tm)!"

Also, the GBU might hit the right house, but that doesn't prevent the shrapnel from the masonry from flying all around into the village square and neighboring homes.

War sucks. The idea that there can be pinprick attacks on precisely the correct targets is a USAF canard that has been recycled since WW2 and the 8th Army Air Force.

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

When you go after terrorists, innocent people are bound to die.

Prove it.

Read your list of victims above. None of them were intentionally killed.

Dan8267 says

If anything, I would argue that the deaths of innocents causes terrorism. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighters. According to the USA Patriot Act, George Washington and the other founding fathers were terrorists.

True. Does not mean we should not go after terrorists.

Dan8267 says

If our goal is to prevent terrorism, then we have to think how we would react if someone blew up an elementary school killing hundreds of our children. Then we must realize that other people would react the exact same way when we do this to them. Terrorist is a label used to dehumanize other people. It's no different than the Nazis referring to Jews as rats and criminals.

How would you define or label the 19 who flew into WTC. ??

Dan8267 says

That's exactly how many in our country portray human beings they label as terrorists. And that's all the word terrorist is, a god-damn label used to circumvent reason and specific evidence.

The Nazis may have labeled Jews as terrorists, but the Jews were still innocent. Terrorists who blow up children are not innocent. They are terrorists.

Dan8267 says

thunderlips11 says

Well said. One of the largest problems with our society is that most Americans value only American lives. The rest of the world is irrelevant to them.

So you will back me up when I say terrorists groups who slaughter and rape women in Africa should be bombed?

Dan8267 says

Strategist says

In that scenario I would get biased and speak out against drone strikes. As that has not happened I can still be rational.

A valid point. However, you are neglecting your bias due to the fact that you live in the country using the drone strikes and not the country enduring the drone strikes.

Not at all. If we had that situation in America, I would welcome Mexico and Canada to conduct drone strikes in America.

Dan8267 says

Yes, religion is bad and it causes people to do evil things. However, the evil done by Al Qaeda does not justify the evil done by the U.S. You might as well say that Al Qaeda killed some Americans, so it's fine for anyone to gun down Americans. Same logic.

Killing Al Qaeda is fully justified and not evil, but moral. We don't have evil intentions.

Dan8267 says

As for suicide bombing, that just means the enemy is braver. Suicide bombings are evil because they are bombings and kill others, not because of the suicide.

Americans prefer to kill safely from a distance by pushing a button. That's cowardly. Smart perhaps, but cowardly. So our killing style is nothing to brag about. Switch technological levels and the U.S. would be using guerrilla tactics like it did during the American Revolution and Al Qaeda would be killing Americans from 10 miles away with Apache helicopters. The difference between the warfare techniques is due to the asymmetric technology and infrastructure.

Terrorists are not brave. They are brainwashed cowards. What's wrong with you?
Brave people are heroes. Are the suicide bombers your heroes?
Sure we would use guerilla warfare if we had to, but we would not be targeting innocent women and children. That is what makes us good.

Dan8267 says

Now I will say that the people in our society overall are more moral than the people in the Middle East, but that is due primarily to the fact that science has quelled religion in our society allowing rational minds to prevail. Religion causes immorality, whereas rational thought and naturalism advances morality.

I could not agree more. Have I convinced you on our disagreements?

These murderers are terrorists. Let's attack the country that sanctions this violence.

"3 years ago today, on April 5, 2010 Wikileaks released this leaked video footage from a U.S. Apache attack helicopter, which shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and about a dozen other people standing around together as the Apache blows them all to pieces with 30mm cannons, in a public square in Eastern Baghdad in 2007.

After the helicopter murders this group, a minivan arrives on the scene and some people attempt to transport some of the wounded to a hospital. These rescuers are fired upon as well, along with the children they had in the vehicle.

The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths occurred. They refused to release the video to Reuters, for an investigation of the murders. But fortunately for us, and unfortunately for them, Private Bradley Manning released the video to the folks at Wikileaks, who decrypted it and shared it under the name "Collateral Murder".

http://vimeo.com/63389575