Have people forgotten about 9/11?

[Scuba Pete]

The biggest bigotry I'm seeing right now is the assumption that someone is hate-filled when it is quite likely that they are not.

Hate is a funny word. More exhibit it than will admit to it. It is the product of dehumanizing other large groups of people and that is largely done with words. I am reminded of a guy I worked with when I was in automotive. The dealer I was working for had just taken on Suzuki Cars so we were getting familiar with them. Every time some new way of doing things came along, he would say "Dem Gooks!". I pointed this out to him one day as being derogatory, and he said "I don't mean anything by it". On further discussion (over the next few days) it became apparent that "out of the heart, the mouth speaks!" He had a lot of resentment towards everything Asian that came from a series of events in his life including being in the Korean Conflict.

 

[kai]

Palestine right now is fighting to have their land back, which land was taken from them by a completely unrelated country. Palestine and Israel are fighting for the exact same thing, and yet Palestine is the terrorist and Israel isn't.

I'm not trying to exculpate those labled terrorist - I'm trying to inculpate some of those not labeled terrorist, to (hopefully) show that terrorist is all a matter of perspective.

now who is labeling ?Palestinians themselves are obviously not all terrorists but there are organisations within and outside Palestine that carry out terrorist acts. A person who practices terrorism is a terrorist.

i don't see it as being all that blurred as you think, terrorists these days have clear and stated aims and even charters ,the suicide murderers even make confessions before they blow up people and put them on the internet.

and personally i dont see the difference in someone labeling all Palestinians as terrorists this would make them seem foolish and unworldly (in my mind) and someone who doesn't want to see terrorists organizations for what they are. the words i like to use are murdering scum

 

[kai]

Like, for example, starting a war to spread the ideology of "democracy"?

All I'm looking for (and not finding) is a willingness to be even-handed about the use of inflammatory terms. Do you consider the Bush administration Christofascists? If you have a term for the main aggressors in this war that is as provocative and offensive as your word for the defenders, I have no gripe. are the bush administarion Christo fascists? i dont think so do they have any fascist type ideology in their political party ? explain how the republican party is fascist?

A willingness to be even handed with language indicates a willingness to be fair-minded when assigning blame, or attributing causes to effects. As such, I can't call al Qaeda fascists without calling the US / UK armed forces fascists, since their actions and motives (ie. killing as many civilians as it takes to achieve political goals) are the same.

Balderdash thats a good word very even handed. if a man packs his car with explosives and sets himself on fire and drives it at the gates of Glasgow international airport lets not blame him oh no he is not responsible for his actions, i know lets blame the good old US of A better known as the Great Satan to our driver and his freinds.

what i am looking for is some kind of idea what the hell you are talking about, you can call alquieda what you like, it doesnt alter the fact they exist, and if the UK has actions and motives as you state like "killing as many civilians as it takes to achieve political goals" then i fnd that statement verging on lunacy unless you can source that for me and i will join you in condemnation of any such policy or action.

 

[Alceste]

if the UK has actions and motives as you state like "killing as many civilians as it takes to achieve political goals" then i fnd that statement verging on lunacy unless you can source that for me and i will join you in condemnation of any such policy or action.

What do you think "war" is? If you're familiar at all with the concept of "Shock and Awe", which was the bugle call from the US administration at the start of the Iraq war, you will be aware it is the title of a policy paper which advocates inflicting a Hiroshima / Nagasaki level of civilian casualties using conventional weapons, in the hope the psychological effect will be so devastating it causes the population under attack to lose the will to fight.

It didn't work, obviously, but the intention was clear. As for the UK's motives, I can only assume it was to back the US no matter what, in the hope of UK corporations getting a share of the spoils of war.

Here is a direct quote:

Theoretically, the magnitude of Shock and Awe Rapid Dominance seeks to impose (in extreme cases) is the non-nuclear equivalent of the impact that the atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese. The Japanese were prepared for suicidal resistance until both nuclear bombs were used. The impact of those weapons was sufficient to transform both the mindset of the average Japanese citizen and the outlook of the leadership through this condition of Shock and Awe. The Japanese simply could not comprehend the destructive power carried by a single airplane. This incomprehension produced a state of awe. source

So, I believe this strategy can be accurately summed up as "killing as many civilians as necessary to achieve a political goal". If you disagree with my summing up, then feel free to address the blurb above, which is straight from the horse's mouth and the reason for my comment.

If you think this policy is lunacy, I agree with you.

 

[kai]

What do you think "war" is? If you're familiar at all with the concept of "Shock and Awe", which was the bugle call from the US administration at the start of the Iraq war, you will be aware it is the title of a policy paper which advocates inflicting a Hiroshima / Nagasaki level of civilian casualties using conventional weapons, in the hope the psychological effect will be so devastating it causes the population under attack to lose the will to fight.

It didn't work, obviously, but the intention was clear. As for the UK's motives, I can only assume it was to back the US no matter what, in the hope of UK corporations getting a share of the spoils of war.

Here is a direct quote:



So, I believe this strategy can be accurately summed up as "killing as many civilians as necessary to achieve a political goal". If you disagree with my summing up, then feel free to address the blurb above, which is straight from the horse's mouth and the reason for my comment.

If you think this policy is lunacy, I agree with you.

i know full well what war is and you havnt answered my challenge, for the uk you just assume?
you obviously dont know anything about the british army rules of engagement etc and i dont think your interested.

and forgive me if i dont go out and buy the book i thought you might have come up with some targeting statistics etc for the civilian targets , or military strategy for killing civilians etc. Ill just assume you have taken your views from the theoryof the book and dont know much about it for yourself.

and i dont think i will get into a debate over japan and WW2 in a 911 thread

 

[Alceste]

i know full well what war is and you havnt answered my challenge, for the uk you just assume?
you obviously dont know anything about the british army rules of engagement etc and i dont think your interested.

and forgive me if i dont go out and buy the book i thought you might have come up with some targeting statistics etc for the civilian targets , or military strategy for killing civilians etc. Ill just assume you have taken your views from the theoryof the book and dont know much about it for yourself.

and i dont think i will get into a debate over japan and WW2 in a 911 thread

Um... the entire "book" (or "military doctrine generated by the National Defence University and adopted by the US administration for the Iraq war", if you want to be accurate about the details) is posted online. I gave you a link.

So please, tell me what you believe Blair's motive for supporting the US in a campaign to inflict monstrous civilian casualties and psychological damage (a la Hiroshima) on Iraqis was, if not a share of the spoils? (Please note I prefer official gov't policy and strategy documents to public, vague statements of altruistic motives, which insult my intelligence.)

BTW, what was your "challenge" you feel I haven't responded to?

 

[Aqualung]

now who is labeling ?

I'm not the one who accused you of labeling? Why are you getting so defensive that I'm generalising to allow for a more efficient conversation? I have enjoyed this debate so far, though, so I don't want you to end up on my ignore list, too, like the others who nitpick at these things instead of dealing with the actual issues raised.

i don't see it as being all that blurred as you think, terrorists these days have clear and stated aims and even charters ,the suicide murderers even make confessions before they blow up people and put them on the internet.

And yet, plenty of organisations who fight for the same things with the same tactics are not labelled terrorists. Take Israel/Palestine for example. Israel and Palistine fight for the same thing (the land) and in the same manner (bombings, even suicide bombings, targeted at civilians). And yet Palestine is a terrorist nation and Israel gets over $134 billion dollars from us.

and personally i dont see the difference in someone labeling all Palestinians as terrorists this would make them seem foolish and unworldly (in my mind) and someone who doesn't want to see terrorists organizations for what they are. the words i like to use are murdering scum

This sentence doesn't make sense. I fear it's actually like two or three sentences run into one, but it makes it very hard for me to figure out what you're trying to say.

 

[kai]

Um... the entire "book" (or "military doctrine generated by the National Defence University and adopted by the US administration for the Iraq war", if you want to be accurate about the details) is posted online. I gave you a link.

its the theory of shock and awe military strategy i saw the link and looked it up on wiki,its nothing new, and doesnt support your statement about targeting civilians. its about taking out military infrastructure. if you look into it the authors have critisised the government for not employng it .

So please, tell me what you believe Blair's motive for supporting the US in a campaign to inflict monstrous civilian casualties and psychological damage (a la Hiroshima) on Iraqis was, if not a share of the spoils? (Please note I prefer official gov't policy and strategy documents to public, vague statements of altruistic motives, which insult my intelligence.)
if you ask me for my opinion what Blairs motive was , it was a mixture of regime change and beleif that Saddam was holding WMD and not cooperatingwith inspectors and the failure of the UN to do anything about it. i beleive he was genuine in his actions and the attacks of 911 exagerated the whole fear factor of terrorists gaining WMD putting saddam and others in the spotlight. In the League of military anti US dictators Saddam took the brunt of that, and Gaddafi gave in. BTW, what was your "challenge" you feel I haven't responded to?

you said it was UK policy to inflict as much civilian casualties as possible and came back with a book on the principal of shack and awe tactics. now i would have prefered some official governmet policy and strategy documents, to public, vague statements of altruistic motives which insult your own intelligence.

and Blair wasnt prime minister al la Hiroshima, and by the way any military man will tell you the shock and awe principle has been around since Roman times.

 

[kai]

I'm not the one who accused you of labeling? Why are you getting so defensive that I'm generalising to allow for a more efficient conversation? I have enjoyed this debate so far, though, so I don't want you to end up on my ignore list, too, like the others who nitpick at these things instead of dealing with the actual issues raised.
generalizing makes the conversation less efficient, its not the right topic to generalise it is in fact wrong to do so in my opinion ,and please don't threaten me with your ignore list, it kind of negates the point of debate i have never saw the need for it myself, and i am not nit picking check my posts i have named organizations and individuals i have been very specific about who i am talking about
And yet, plenty of organisations who fight for the same things with the same tactics are not labelled terrorists. Take Israel/Palestine for example. Israel and Palistine fight for the same thing (the land) and in the same manner (bombings, even suicide bombings, targeted at civilians). And yet Palestine is a terrorist nation and Israel gets over $134 billion dollars from us.

Once again let me enlighten you Palestine is not a terrorist nation and i would like to know where you get that notion from?


This sentence doesn't make sense. I fear it's actually like two or three sentences run into one, but it makes it very hard for me to figure out what you're trying to say.

try harder i am sure you have a higher standard of education than me i am sure you can work it out. on second thoughts seeing as you have repeated your self here.

what it basically means is Palestinians are not terrorists and its a foolish and unworldly thing to say, and the term i use for groups like the Al Asqsa martyrs brigades who are terrorists, is murdering scum

 

[Aqualung]

try harder i am sure you have a higher standard of education than me i am sure you can work it out. on second thoughts seeing as you have repeated your self here.

what it basically means is Palestinians are not terrorists and its a foolish and unworldly thing to say, and the term i use for groups like the Al Asqsa martyrs brigades who are terrorists, is murdering scum

Aw, too bad the debate deteriorated to ad hominem attacks and straw men. I was having fun, too.

 

[kai]

Aw, too bad the debate deteriorated to ad hominem attacks and straw men. I was having fun, too.

What ran out of steam already? have some passion for your argument,
wheres the ad hominem and straw man with dorothy the tin man and the lion with no courage?

an ad homoinem works to change the subject , you stated palestine was considered a terrorist state , you are wrong, i was talking about terrorists if you wish to bow out then be my guest. but if i have failed to grasp your point then please retort

 

[Alceste]

you said it was UK policy to inflict as much civilian casualties as possible and came back with a book on the principal of shack and awe tactics. now i would have prefered some official governmet policy and strategy documents, to public, vague statements of altruistic motives which insult your own intelligence.

and Blair wasnt prime minister al la Hiroshima, and by the way any military man will tell you the shock and awe principle has been around since Roman times.

At the risk of repeating myself, the Shock and Awe paper is a military document, and was intended by the Bush administration to be used in Iraq. It calls for knocking out all of a nation's infrastructure - water, food, communications, government, the whole shebang, and obviously anyone who happens to be near "infrastructure". (That's just about everybody). It doesn't call for limiting civilian casualties, but says that's a "political consideration" that has to be understood.

But why am I bothering, you obviously didn't read it, and you obviously don't think it has anything to do with the war. So we're at an impasse, really. I've given you a US military strategy document and a US geopolitical policy paper, both of which the Bush administration have drawn upon enthusiastically from their first day in office (preferring them even to the advice of their own senior military personnel), and you've dismissed them without reason, come back with nothing of your own, and grown somewhat abusive toward me in your replies.

So it seems I'm working harder at this than you are, as I am interested in the truth , not simply arguing for the sake of arguing. The truth is hard work, disagreeing with everybody without thinking or doing any research is easy, apparently.

Again, since Bush openly planned to use shock and awe during the sales pitch for the Iraq war, ("Shock and Awe", as I've pointed out and you've failed to rebut, means "causing enough casualties to inflict as much psychological trauma as Hiroshima/Nagasaki") why do YOU think the UK decided to participate, if not for a share of the spoils of war? (Third time's a charm).

By the way, it's just occurred to me that by the logic of "Shock and Awe", the World Trade Center was a legitimate military target, as it contained government offices and financial businesses that certainly qualify as "infrastructure". So maybe to al Qaeda the Americans inside were acceptable collateral damage too, just like the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani men, women and children Bush and Blair have murdered are to you.

 

[kai]

,

At the risk of repeating myself, the Shock and Awe paper is a military document, and was intended by the Bush administration to be used in Iraq. It calls for knocking out all of a nation's infrastructure - water, food, communications, government, the whole shebang, and obviously anyone who happens to be near "infrastructure". (That's just about everybody). It doesn't call for limiting civilian casualties, but says that's a "political consideration" that has to be understood.
actually it says "Minimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", their doctrine of Rapid Dominance requires the capability to disrupt "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure"[6] and in practice, "the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[7]





But why am I bothering, you obviously didn't read it, and you obviously don't think it has anything to do with the war. So we're at an impasse, really. I've given you a US military strategy document and a US geopolitical policy paper, both of which the Bush administration have drawn upon enthusiastically from their first day in office (preferring them even to the advice of their own senior military personnel), and you've dismissed them without reason, come back with nothing of your own, and grown somewhat abusive toward me in your replies.

why are you bothering if you are taking phrases out of context? do you think i am a fool?

So it seems I'm working harder at this than you are, as I am interested in the truth , not simply arguing for the sake of arguing. The truth is hard work, disagreeing with everybody without thinking or doing any research is easy, apparently.
really?
Again, since Bush openly planned to use shock and awe during the sales pitch for the Iraq war, ("Shock and Awe", as I've pointed out and you've failed to rebut, means "causing enough casualties to inflict as much psychological trauma as Hiroshima/Nagasaki") why do YOU think the UK decided to participate, if not for a share of the spoils of war? (Third time's a charm).
already answered try reading my threads
By the way, it's just occurred to me that by the logic of "Shock and Awe", the World Trade Center was a legitimate military target, as it contained government offices and financial businesses that certainly qualify as "infrastructure". So maybe to al Qaeda the Americans inside were acceptable collateral damage too, just like the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani men, women and children Bush and Blair have murdered are to you.

nice try but why are you putting words into my mouth , i will speak some for you, of course the people in the world trade centre were not acceptable collateral damage they were the direct target, mission accomplished.



and one last point about "shock and awe"

The principal author of Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance, Harlan Ullman was one of the most vocal critics of the shock and awe campaign. Ullman stated, "The current campaign does not appear to correspond to what we envisioned." In addition, "the bombing that lit up the Baghdad night skies the next day, and in the following days, did not match the force, scope and scale of the broad-based shock-and-awe plan, Ullman and U.S. officials say." In a question directed to Ullman, asking if it is "too late for shock and awe now?" Ullman responded "We have not seen it; it is not coming


Apparently, the "Bush administration throttle[d] back on the Iraqi bombing" and the original plan was scrubbed days before its implementation as "political concerns over civilian casualties factored into the decision.


Shock and awe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


no personal attack intended but you are still avoiding my response to your statement that it was UK policy to kill as many civilians as possible , a statement which is an insult to every british soldier that has served in that particular theatre .however interesting the principles of "shock and awe" are it has nothing to do with UK military rules of engagement.

 

[Alceste]

no personal attack intended but you are still avoiding my response to your statement that it was UK policy to kill as many civilians as possible , a statement which is an insult to every british soldier that has served in that particular theatre .however interesting the principles of "shock and awe" are it has nothing to do with UK military rules of engagement.

I'm pretty sure I said "as many civilians as is necessary in order to achieve their political objective." (AKA in the West "Acceptable Collateral Damage") I don't feel like wading back through the posts to be sure, but you are welcome to do so if you wish. If I did say "as many as possible", which I doubt, I agree that would have been an error.

So what are the UK military rules of engagement and how were they applied to the decision to invade Iraq alongside the US, regardless of the inevitability and obvious resulting consequence of massive civilian casualties?

Footnote to your comment regarding Shock and Awe and civilian casualties, there are many ways to interpret the phrase "collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front"

Considering the context, I think your interpretation of the word "understood" as "avoided" is optimistic. I'll continue to interpret "understood" as "understood", and assume that since the rest of the document calls repeatedly for WWII level casualties and misinformation, they mean "covered up", rather than "avoided".

 

[kai]

I'm pretty sure I said "as many civilians as is necessary in order to achieve their political objective." (AKA in the West "Acceptable Collateral Damage") I don't feel like wading back through the posts to be sure, but you are welcome to do so if you wish. If I did say "as many as possible", which I doubt, I agree that would have been an error. you have the correct wording ,its insulting ,and in error and if you dont wish to correct it then prove it

So what are the UK military rules of engagement and how were they applied to the decision to invade Iraq alongside the US, regardless of the inevitability and obvious resulting consequence of massive civilian casualties? the safety of non combatents is paramount civilian targeting is not allowed you literally have to account for every round your issued with and you can only return fire, it is actually a joint services publication JSP398a if you feel like doing some research

Footnote to your comment regarding Shock and Awe and civilian casualties, there are many ways to interpret the phrase "collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front"

Considering the context, I think your interpretation of the word "understood" as "avoided" is optimistic. I'll continue to interpret "understood" as "understood", and assume that since the rest of the document calls repeatedly for WWII level casualties and misinformation, they mean "covered up", rather than "avoided".

i am not interpreting anything just reading the stategem , you seem obsessed with this strategy and insist on references to WW2 ,


if your interested the MOD have a website that is available with information on what the british army is doing in Iraq and elsewhere
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Home/


if your looking for a catalogue of murder and mayhem you will have to go one of those conspiracy type websites i am sure theres one out there

 

[Alceste]

Kai, this is pointless. You've called my wording offensive without indicating which wording you're talking about, and called for me to "correct it" based on what I assume is your own flawed remembrance of what was actually said, or "prove it", which I have already done. I posted a link to two of the policy documents the US adheres to that have yet to be deviated from, and call for continuous warfare on multiple fronts, permanent US military bases throughout the middle east, control of space, cyberspace and the entire world through military force. The single-minded application of these policies is obvious in the world right now. I think I've done my part here.

What have you done except dismiss, misrepresent, ignore and selectively interpret the information in the Shock and Awe doctrine and the Rebuilding America's Defences paper, even going so far as to attribute their literal contents to me, personally, making offensive comments about british soldiers.

The UK is a lapdog in this conflict. Your job, as laid out by Tony Blair, is to jump when the US says jump, torture when the US says torture, kill when the US says kill. I think whatever rules of military engagement Britain is meant to have do not apply in this conflict, where your government openly participates in the illlegal, covert extradition of refugees to countries where they are tortured into confessing to made-up crimes they will be tried and potentially executed for in a kangaroo court at Guantanemo Bay. Your entire country, it seems, except for you, is ashamed and humiliated to be a part of this conflict at all.

What makes you so committed to this murderous new colonialism? Is it just that you dislike Islam? Or what? Are a handful of Brits still pining for the old, "dignified" colonialism, where a few rules were thought to apply, trying to read the morals of those days into these?

 

[kai]

Kai, this is pointless. You've called my wording offensive without indicating which wording you're talking about, and called for me to "correct it" based on what I assume is your own flawed remembrance of what was actually said, or "prove it", which I have already done. I posted a link to two of the policy documents the US adheres to that have yet to be deviated from, and call for continuous warfare on multiple fronts, permanent US military bases throughout the middle east, control of space, cyberspace and the entire world through military force. The single-minded application of these policies is obvious in the world right now. I think I've done my part here.you said it was UK policy to kill civilans it quite clear what you said i am still waitin for you to apologise or prove it.

What have you done except dismiss, misrepresent, ignore and selectively interpret the information in the Shock and Awe doctrine and the Rebuilding America's Defences paper, even going so far as to attribute their literal contents to me, personally, making offensive comments about british soldiers. what the hell are you talking about? you seem to ignore every post i make and just keep on about shock and awe of which i posted the view of the author that it his doctrine wasnt used at all !
i repeat you said it was UK policy to kill civilians.now prove it!

The UK is a lapdog in this conflict. Your job, as laid out by Tony Blair, is to jump when the US says jump, torture when the US says torture, kill when the US says kill. I think whatever rules of military engagement Britain is meant to have do not apply in this conflict, where your government openly participates in the illlegal, covert extradition of refugees to countries where they are tortured into confessing to made-up crimes they will be tried and potentially executed for in a kangaroo court at Guantanemo Bay. Your entire country, it seems, except for you, is ashamed and humiliated to be a part of this conflict at all. i know thats your view , its not mine , i now see your true colours your not here to debate but to press certain political views if th UK participates in any illegal activity then prove it, name your source.

What makes you so committed to this murderous new colonialism? Is it just that you dislike Islam? Or what? Are a handful of Brits still pining for the old, "dignified" colonialism, where a few rules were thought to apply, trying to read the morals of those days into these?

what murderous new colonialism?
you obviously have some political motives for your rantings ,
i neither like nor dislike Islam why do you ask?
the rest of your post is incoherant babble verging on being a veiled insult, you obviously are not going to retract your accusation of the UK policy to kill civilians so i must consider you either a fool or have some emnity for my country i am not sure which maybe both .

 

[kai]

Like, for example, starting a war to spread the ideology of "democracy"?

All I'm looking for (and not finding) is a willingness to be even-handed about the use of inflammatory terms. Do you consider the Bush administration Christofascists? If you have a term for the main aggressors in this war that is as provocative and offensive as your word for the defenders, I have no gripe.

A willingness to be even handed with language indicates a willingness to be fair-minded when assigning blame, or attributing causes to effects. As such, I can't call al Qaeda fascists without calling the US / UK armed forces fascists, since their actions and motives (ie. killing as many civilians as it takes to achieve political goals) are the same.

name your source!
where do you get the information that UK armed forces in action or motive wish to kill as many civilians as it takes to achieve political goals?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Back to the OP...

No, very few people have forgotten about 9/11

However, we think it's unfortunate that politicians with base ulterior motives have used the horror of that day to further their own careers and engage us in a war with a country with absolutely NO TIES to that terrorist attack.

We have invaded a sovereign country, brought real terrorists into their borders, and we wonder why we are being attacked? It would have been easier if the tax payers had just cut Haliburton a check and said "no thanks" to war. We could have saved THOUSANDS of lives by avoiding this needless and anti-American war.

 

[Alceste]

[/color]

name your source!
where do you get the information that UK armed forces in action or motive wish to kill as many civilians as it takes to achieve political goals?

What do you think a war is? Your question is ridiculous. Prove it? You're at war! You want me to prove you're at war? Jeez. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died in your war. On top of that, the depleted uranium left by the bombing will cause hundreds of thousands of hideous, deadly birth defects in Iraqi civilians who have yet to be born. British soldiers are responsible for these past and future deaths. The UK government knew hundreds of thousands of civilians would die before going in, calculated this was a good way to achieve their political goals, and went in anyway. What more do you want?

To you, what is the moral difference between the British soldiers who die over there while killing Iraqis to achieve Blair's political goals and the Saudi Arabians who died in New York to achieve Osama bin Laden's political goals?

I don't see any difference. You haven't made a convincing case there is a difference. As far as I can see, your position is mostly based on naivety, propaganda, anti-Islamic sentiment and wishful thinking.