New York Times article about American Muslim terrorists

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It sucks when your own tactics are used against you doesn't it:

Not when you know as well as I do that there are no numbers available that would support or disprove my assertion. It isn't something that has been sufficiently studied quantitatively.

Edit to add: Just for you, here are some numbers and other info:
OIF

OEF

Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force (Kosovo)

In Panama:

[T]he "surgical operation" by American forces inflicted a toll in civilian lives that was at least four-and-a-half times higher than military causalities in the enemy, and twelve or thirteen times higher than the casualties suffered by U.S. troops. By themselves these ratios suggest that the rule of proportionality and the duty to minimize harm to civilians, where doing so would not compromise a legitimate military objective, were not faithfully observed by they invading U.S. forces. For us, the controversy over the number of civilian casualties should not obscure the important debate on the manner in which those people died.

It appears that you're simply trying to avoid addressing the issue because you know you can't offer a supportable opposing argument. That's pretty typical of your debate tactics, in my experience.

***The only difference is that I had used figures to back my assertion.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

It sucks when your own tactics are used against you doesn't it:

Not when you know as well as I do that there are no numbers available that would support or disprove my assertion. It isn't something that has been sufficiently studied quantitatively.

Edit to add: Just for you, here are some numbers and other info:
OIF

OEF

Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force (Kosovo)

In Panama:

[T]he "surgical operation" by American forces inflicted a toll in civilian lives that was at least four-and-a-half times higher than military causalities in the enemy, and twelve or thirteen times higher than the casualties suffered by U.S. troops. By themselves these ratios suggest that the rule of proportionality and the duty to minimize harm to civilians, where doing so would not compromise a legitimate military objective, were not faithfully observed by they invading U.S. forces. For us, the controversy over the number of civilian casualties should not obscure the important debate on the manner in which those people died.

It appears that you're simply trying to avoid addressing the issue because you know you can't offer a supportable opposing argument. That's pretty typical of your debate tactics, in my experience.

Well, finally you give some frame of reference. "killing innocent civilians needlessly" does not specify intent. It seems instead you prefer it better without our involvement, I'm sure all those civilians in the Sudan, and Rwanda are better off. The OIF link you provided is pretty interesting, but it doesn't attribute the party(ies) responsible. US forces in Iraq are not on the line for offensive operations. They support Iraqi forces.

Is civilian death needless? Yes. Having seen civilians used as human shields I definitely agree with you.

Quote

If you had read my posts, you would know that what I have referred to is exactly what our military and propaganda refers to as "collateral damage." Putting a PC name on killing innocent civilians doesn't make their deaths any more justifiable than when our own civilians died in terrorist attacks. Both cases are tragic. The aggressors in both cases feel justified in their actions.

Quote

On the contrary, the US has trained its military, and developed weapons systems that are surgical in nature.

Then why are you afraid to answer the question about the number of civilian lives lost in US military interventions?

I'm not aware of the US maintaining that statistic. If you want me to acknowledge civilians die in military actions, I will acknowledge it. I don't apologize for it, and I don't support it. It is ugliness. To lay such individual blame upon the US is narrow minded in my view given historical reference. I point out that we do not intentionally target them in combat situations.

Quote

Quote

Civilians are not combatants.

Civilians are not soldiers. Acting in defense of their self, their family, or their community when those things are attacked by foreign aggressors does not make them non-civilians.

You're wrong. I don't have any other way to point it out to you. My providing security so that a search team can conduct an inspection, then being shot at is not defense against an invading force. The invasion was done. The guys shoot at us over there are not the "valiant father looking to protect mother and child from the brutal boot of the US soldier". They are taking arms and targeting us in organized tactical engagements. Those are not civilians. If you don't believe me, again, I suggest you see for yourself and assess firsthand.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[redlegphi 0]

Quote

I don't feel that I'm compromising my patriotism by pointing out that the criminals (Al Quaeda) had a motive for their crimes.

Anyway, it's a well-established fact that one of the chief motives for 9/11 was the continued presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War.

Look at any history or documentary of Osama bin Laden & Al Quaeda.

That said, Saudi Arabia's policies are also a HUGE factor. They embraced a fundamentalist Wahhabi-version of Islam, and encouraged these guys to go off & fight the USSR in Afghanistan, but they wound up creating a monster which turned against their own ruling party.

I was reading something about this the other night. Apparently shortly after Saddam invaded Kuwait, Osama volunteered to lead a force against Saddam to expel him from Kuwait. He got more than a little pissed at us when the Saudi government decided to let the US take care of Saddam instead.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It seems instead you prefer it better without our involvement …

Often, we shouldn't be involved (e.g., Soviet War in Afghanistan, OEF, OIF). Sometimes, when our involvement is necessary, military intervention is a poor choice.

Quote

The OIF link you provided is pretty interesting, but it doesn't attribute the party(ies) responsible.

Since it was our invasion that led to the war, we are the party responsible.

Quote

Is civilian death needless? Yes. Having seen civilians used as human shields I definitely agree with you.

It seems like only yesterday that you were posting about the US having developed "weapons systems that are surgical in nature." Oh, wait, it was only yesterday. Perhaps the weapons systems to which you referred aren't as precise as you would have had us believe?

Sometimes, the presence of civilians makes engagement of the enemy a bad idea. If the mission requires winning the hearts and minds of the locals, especially when the enemy has the support of a significant portion of the local population, then use of hard power is usually a poor choice. By using soft power, it becomes possible to win over the locals and neutralize the human shield factor.

Quote

I'm not aware of the US maintaining that statistic. If you want me to acknowledge civilians die in military actions, I will acknowledge it. I don't apologize for it, and I don't support it. It is ugliness.

I did supply some of the numbers in my previous post, such as those in OIF (conservative estimate).

For what US national security interest did those innocent people die? We know now (and knew before the invasion) that Iraq posed no threat the US or even to her neighbors. The different ethnic groups coexisted relatively peacefully under secular rule.

We have the benefit of hindsight to know with certainty that OIF was a mistake. We should be apologizing for the deaths, injuries, and infrastructure damage that we took upon ourselves to cause.

Quote

To lay such individual blame upon the US is narrow minded in my view given historical reference.

To refuse to accept responsibility is cowardly in my view. (I am curious about which historical references to which you are referring.)

Quote

I point out that we do not intentionally target them in combat situations.

I'm not sure we can claim a difference between not intentionally targeting them, and targeting "enemies" who we know to be among a disproportionate number of civilians.

Quote

You're wrong. I don't have any other way to point it out to you.

Okay. I'll concede that by the definitions set forth by the Geneva Conventions, even violence committed in self defense eliminates one's status as a non-combatant. But, I'm not sure you want to use definitions from the Geneva Conventions and acknowledge their application. From Common Article 2:

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Quote

My providing security so that a search team can conduct an inspection, then being shot at is not defense against an invading force. The invasion was done.

Fair enough, we are now an occupying force.

To what kind of inspections are you referring? Was information being sought from civilians? Were they held at gunpoint during the inspection?

Quote

The guys shoot at us over there are not the "valiant father looking to protect mother and child from the brutal boot of the US soldier".

I have no doubt that some of them are exactly that. It would be naïve to believe otherwise.

Remember, there's no shortage of Geneva Convention Articles that have been violated by US forces in OIF and OEF (e.g., torture, murder). Considering the unlawful actions of some troops and units, it is not unreasonable to expect some civilians to be afraid for their safety when US troops are nearby.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

The reluctance of American Muslim "leaders", Imams or teachers, to confront this perversion in absolute terms may as well be an endorsement.

Interesting. So should we consider recent Irish activity of Catholic Church an official Christian endorsement? Not only they did not confront it - some church authorities actually helped to hide it!

And what kind of confrontation from Muslim leaders you're exactly looking for?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

My providing security so that a search team can conduct an inspection, then being shot at is not defense against an invading force. The invasion was done.

Fair enough, we are now an occupying force.

To what kind of inspections are you referring? Was information being sought from civilians? Were they held at gunpoint during the inspection?

Believe it or not, civilians would seek us out, and help us find weapons caches, at great personal risk (we had other resources as well). Unfortunately, insurgents would calculate for that, and most of the time, while uncovering these caches, we would get ambushed. I have no doubt that some of these civilians were playing both sides in some cases, but since it was still an active combat zone, the field intel had to begin somewhere. Most of these caches were kept schools, or public places.

Quote

Quote

The guys shoot at us over there are not the "valiant father looking to protect mother and child from the brutal boot of the US soldier".

I have no doubt that some of them are exactly that.

...and you know this how?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I don't think we should underestimate the importance of this event. Many, many Americans feel that most or all Muslims are at least complicit by silence with terrorism. These Americans have stood up (not without fear of violent reprisal) and said loudly "This is not what Islam is all about!. The local Imams are telling their congregations (and the TV cameras) that they must fight extremism in their own communities.
I think this will be sen historically as an important thing.

Theres none as blind as those who don't want to see

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Darius11 12]

Quote

I'm suprised that it took so long for this to get into SC. What the article conveniantly doesn't mention is that these men were turned in by their family and the local Imam at thier Mosque called the FBI.

Ehhhhhhhhhhheeeeeeem ehhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeeemmmmmmmmmmmmm


COFF COFF

I think the point Skyrad made is the one most important. Is there any group that can claim they have no one that has done something wrong.

I think when parents let people know that their son is up to no good. I mean what else do you want?

Its much better then some dumb fuck that says I had no idea my kid was fucked in the head.

The action they took should silence all who attempted to paint all Muslims in the same light, unless you’re really trying to not see the obvious.

We all have people who are mislead, make mistakes or just fucked in the head.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

...and you know this how?

That we weren't welcomed with open arms was my first clue. The documented cases of murder and torture by US military personnel also offers a hint that some civilians might feel the need to protect their families from US troops.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!