advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: SteveJobs
Date: February 02, 2006 07:13AM
Submitted for your consumption:

[www.cnn.com]

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 02, 2006 11:36AM
Steve,

Hamas ran out of chances when it targeted civilians with its suicide murderers.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: SteveJobs
Date: February 02, 2006 11:46AM
Then, why would President Carter offer up that wisdom?

It really IS beyond me. It seems to be way more than an olive branch.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 02, 2006 12:01PM
Steve,

Don't know, don't care. I've already come to my own conclusions about Hamas and my opinion will not change until such a time as they prove without a doubt to me that they deserve a chance.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Pops
Date: February 02, 2006 12:17PM
I haven't changed my ideas yet about Hamas or Carter, but I cn't imagine what else he, or any politician, could say. We - the Bush government - has made such a huge issue about exporting democracy as a means toward regional peace.

What do you do when it slaps you in the face like this? Maybe plan an exit strategy for the likely civil unrest that is liable to occur in Iraq after its exercise in freedom and voting.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 02, 2006 01:03PM
The difference between us and them is we have an air force to bomb civilians.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 02, 2006 01:24PM
Refurb,

"The difference between us and them is we have an air force to bomb civilians." That's funny! Thanks for one of the best laughs I've had all day.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 02, 2006 01:33PM
Bombing civilians isn't something I find amusing, but laugh while you can. Someday we all answer for our words, Robert.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 02, 2006 01:55PM
Refurb,

I don't find bombing civilians funny at all. I do find it amusing when someone attempts to equate intentional bombing of civilians by suicide murderers with _accidental_ and _unintentional_ bombings of them by the U.S. Armed forces.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2006 01:56PM by Robert M.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 02, 2006 02:20PM
Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
... I do
> find it amusing when someone attempts to equate
> intentional bombing of civilians by suicide
> murderers with _accidental_ and _unintentional_
> bombings of them by the U.S. Armed forces.

When you drop bombs on civilian areas you know you're going to kill civilians. This is nothing new. Firebombing German & Japanese cities killed more civilians than did nukes.

Re: the myth of "surgical bombing" -
The next time your surgeon suggests using a bomb, get a second opinion.

[www.cursor.org]

We've use illegal cluster bombs on civilian areas, and kids find the unexploded, brightly colored "bomblets" and think they're toys. We've used illegal depleted uranium, which is toxic for thousands of years, and illegal phosphorous weapons, which burn through skin down to the bone. These are indescriminate weapons we've used in civilian areas. To claim civilian deaths that result are "unintentional" is either grossly naive or totally disingenuous.

If I suspect the guy in the apartment next to yours is a terrorist is it OK for me to drop a 500# bomb on him? When this kills your wife and kids will you excuse me saying it was unintentional? Only fools and blind partisans still believe.


Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: brofoski
Date: February 02, 2006 02:21PM
Give Hamas a chance to do what? They only want one thing.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 02, 2006 02:45PM
Refurb,

Please continue to ignore the difference, especially since intent doesn't appear to be meaningful to you. I'll not waste additional time on this topic.

Robert



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2006 02:47PM by Robert M.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 02, 2006 03:04PM
If you drop a bomb on someone you *intend* to kill them, don't you? Why quibble over "intent?"

If you don't intend to shoot someone, don't point a gun at them. If you don't intend to kill them, don't pull the trigger. Just answer my question about bombing your neighbor and killing your wife & kids. Would you excuse me saying I didn't intend to kill them?

Take off the red,white & blue blinders. You've been brainwashed into standing up and saluting whenever someone waves a piece of cloth. Learn to think for yourself, and contemplate what is best for your country, not just what's best for big bidness.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 02, 2006 03:20PM
Refurb,

I will recognize that you didn't _intend_ to kill them because there is a difference. However, I'd still curse your name and pray that horrible things happen to you for the rest of your life and afterlife (if there is one).

Also, you do realize Big Bidness (and big business since I've no doubt that's what you meant) has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Bringing it up serves no useful purpose.

By the way, that article is interesting. Armed forces _intended_ to kill the children who died playing with clusterbomb components, right? Oy.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 02, 2006 04:15PM
Robert -
If I drop that bomb on your neighbor's apartment, and I know it's going to kill anyone within its blast radius, wouldn't any court of law rule that I intended to kill anyone within that range?

Of course big biz has EVERYTHING to do with war. War has always been fought by young men to make old ones rich. Even Douglas MacArthur admitted it.

"The powers in charge keep us in a perpetual state of fear keep us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant sums demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."
[www.strike-the-root.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Phy
Date: February 02, 2006 05:26PM
I have to agree with Refurbvirgin on this one.
Especially when he said, "Of course big biz has EVERYTHING to do with war. War has always been fought by young men to make old ones rich. Even Douglas MacArthur admitted it. "
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: djroga3
Date: February 02, 2006 05:34PM
why not, we gave ol' jimmy one
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 02, 2006 06:23PM
Robert,

Cluster bombs epitomize non-specific weapons, which kill militant and civilian indiscriminately, especially when dropped on civilian areas. We know these weapons will kill anyone picking them up or that they fall near and yet we drop them in areas known to be inhabited by civilians, ergo we INTEND to kill civilians. Why is that so hard to understand?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2006 07:47PM by Refurbvirgin.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 02, 2006 07:15PM
Refurb,

I understand it completely. I just disagree because you continue to not factor intent into the equation. While the bombs do drop into areas where civilians _may_ get injured or killed by them doesn't equate intention to kill them. That civilians die in wars is accidental. horrible but accidental. Unless, of course, you go in with the intention of killing them. Hamas intends to kill civilians from the start. They make no attempt whatsoever to avoid them. They try to maximize the number of civilians they can kill. That’s what differentiates us from Hamas.

That part of their charter also specifically calls for the destruction of a country should be considered as well. I didn’t bring it up because their use of suicide murders alone is enough of a reason not to give them a chance. I don’t know about you but I will not offer any support whatsoever to a group whose primary intention is the destruction of another country. Not just to win a war/battle/make a political statement/etc but the literal obliteration of a country.

Think on that.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 02, 2006 07:53PM
Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I understand it completely. I just disagree
> because you continue to not factor intent into the
> equation.

Let me attempt to clarify one more time. If you drop a bomb on a neighborhood, and you know there are civilians living there, and you know the blast radius of the bomb you use will take out homes other than the one you are targeting, then you are knowingly killing civilians, hence you intended to do that. This makes us no better than Hamas.

>I don’t know
> about you but I will not offer any support
> whatsoever to a group whose primary intention is
> the destruction of another country. Not just to
> win a war/battle/make a political statement/etc
> but the literal obliteration of a country.

So you don't support our illegal, unnecessary, immoral war on Iraq?

Thanks!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 02, 2006 09:27PM
Refurb,

Nopes. It doesn't work. Good try, though. Hamas doesn't attempt to differentiate between civilians and military targets. We do and it makes all the difference, even if civilians die accidentally.

BTW, I never said anything about my views on the war in Iraq. So, whatever you think you know about my opinion of it, is just that. It may or may not have anything at all in common with my own beliefs on the subject.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 02, 2006 11:45PM
So, Robert, your understanding of the word "intent" would absolve me of blame if I were trying to shotgun an enemy when he was standing in the midst of a bunch of your kids and some of the buckshot "accidentally" pierced their eyes? After all it was never my "intent" to harm the kids. They were just collateral damage.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: kj
Date: February 03, 2006 12:12AM
2 things:

If we wanted to kill civilians there, they would ALL be dead. If our intention was to kill them, we could do much better.

Killing innocent people is not the only factor that figures into whether we are "just as bad as Hamas". I would venture to say Hamas would be monumentally more destructive than we are, given the same resources. kj.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 03, 2006 01:11AM
Yes, Hamas doesn't have helicopter gunships, or tanks, or F16s, otherwise the kill ratio of Palestinians to Israelis wouldn't be 3:1. Our use of Agent Orange in Vietnam is STILL killing and deforming innocent people, as will our use of depleted uranium 30 years from now (if not thousands of years hence). These are genocidal weapons INTENDED to depopulate regions whose resources we covet.

Madeleine Albright, Clinton's Jabba the Hut sec'y of state, told Leslie Stahl that killing half a million Iraqi kids "was worth it, because it showed sanctions were working." Oh, we intended to kill those children all right. Do not be deceived. We live in the belly of a beast, fattening ourselves on its kills, but kept in the dark so we don't see the blood on our hands. Wake up.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 03, 2006 06:24AM
Refurb,

To an extent, absolutely. BTW, why aren't you blaming the enemy for placing the children into danger in the first place? He/she is turning them into human shields.

As KJ said, Hamas would be _vastly_ more destructive if they had our resources. To be blunt, they would obliterate Israel and the deaths would include all of its civilians regardless of race, religion, creed and origin.

That's the difference, something which you cannot seem to grasp. End of story.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 03, 2006 08:23AM
Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>... why aren't you
> blaming the enemy for placing the children into
> danger in the first place? He/she is turning them
> into human shields.

So the fact that those we wish to target live next door to innocent civilians in crowded urban or village environments excuses our killing those innocents to take out the undesirables? You have all the ethics of Janet Reno, when she ordered the assault on Waco.

> As KJ said, Hamas would be _vastly_ more
> destructive if they had our resources. To be
> blunt, they would obliterate Israel and the deaths
> would include all of its civilians regardless of
> race, religion, creed and origin.

In much the same way our bombing of Iraq has killed many Christians and other non-combatants. As I said, we're no better than Hamas. The only difference is in the vastly greater number of our victims. Our btural sanctions and 12 year bombing and strafing campaign to weaken Iraq since the '91 war killed an estimated million and a half Iraqi civilians, including half a million children, whose deaths we justified saying "it was worth it." Don't try to tell me how much more vicious Hamas is until they reach that volume of violence. I condemn all violence, theirs or ours, but keep my perspective. Do you?

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 03, 2006 09:09AM
Refurb,

Some thoughts...

> So the fact that those we wish to target live next door
> to innocent civilians in crowded urban or village
> environments excuses our killing those innocents to
> take out the undesirables? You have all the ethics of
> Janet Reno, when she ordered the assault on Waco.

So, why aren't you blaming the enemy for placing children (and other civilians) into danger in the first place?

> > As KJ said, Hamas would be _vastly_ more
> > destructive if they had our resources. To be
> > blunt, they would obliterate Israel and the deaths
> > would include all of its civilians regardless of
> > race, religion, creed and origin.
>
> In much the same way our bombing of Iraq has killed
> many Christians and other non-combatants. As I said,
> we're no better than Hamas. The only difference is in
> the vastly greater number of our victims.

You ignored that intent thing again.

> Our btural
> sanctions and 12 year bombing and strafing campaign to
> weaken Iraq since the '91 war killed an estimated
> million and a half Iraqi civilians, including half a
> million children, whose deaths we justified saying "it
> was worth it." Don't try to tell me how much more
> vicious Hamas is until they reach that volume of
> violence. I condemn all violence, theirs or ours, but
> keep my perspective. Do you?

I haven't changed my perspective at all. All I've done is point out one that you disagree with while including factor(s) you insist on dismissing, one(s) that impact(s) the big picture.

Like I said, end of story.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 03, 2006 09:32AM
Refrub,

Almost forgot... Sanctions have nothing to do with the discussion. Why do you insist on bring up things that are irrelevant? If I remember correctly, there was much more to the Koresh situation than you've offered in your post. That the Koresh situation is also irrelevant is a different matter entirely.

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 03, 2006 01:38PM
Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, why aren't you blaming the enemy for placing
> children (and other civilians) into danger in the
> first place?

The people we're bombing in Iraq are mostly locals resisting our occupation. We target them in their homes through the use of informants. Most of them probably have no idea they're being targeted, otherwise they'd leave, dontcha think?

> You ignored that intent thing again.

No, I haven't. If you drop a bomb on a residential area where you know it will kill innocent civilians then you INTEND to kill them. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Just wishful thinking that the blast radius won't encompass the area inhabited by innocents or be contained to the room the targeted individual(s) inhabit does not absolve you of responsiblity. It's like tossing a hand grenade at a crowd of people to kill one bad guy, then saying "We only intended to kill one person, so we're not to blame for all the others who died."

> I haven't changed my perspective at all. All I've
> done is point out one that you disagree with while
> including factor(s) you insist on dismissing,
> one(s) that impact(s) the big picture.

Can you restate that? It doesn't make sense to me grammatically.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 03, 2006 01:49PM
Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Almost forgot... Sanctions have nothing to do with
> the discussion. Why do you insist on bring up
> things that are irrelevant?

We were discussing the culpability of those whose actions result in the deaths of innocents even though they didn't intend to harm them. Sanctions were intended to force Saddam from power, but they only entrenched him and gave him the ability to demonize us to his people, proving their suffering was our fault, not his. Sanctions killed a million and a half Iraqis, and we said, through "Mad" Albright that killing a half million kids was "worth it," thereby accepting responsibity for those kids deaths. This goes beyond any question of what our intent was, to admitting it.

If I remember
> correctly, there was much more to the Koresh
> situation than you've offered in your post. That
> the Koresh situation is also irrelevant is a
> different matter entirely.

We knew there were innocent women and children in that building, and that they'd been tipped off, so the surprize element that might have minimized resistance was lost, yet Reno went ahead anyway. Knowing that there were innocents in the building and that Koresh had taught doomsday, resist-to-death theology, she ordered a full scale attack on the building anyway, showing that she intended to cause innocents deaths. He could have been picked up on one of his forays to town, but she evidently intended to send a message to any other such groups that resistance was futile.

This discussion is about responsibility for unintended deaths when knowledge of the effects of our actions on bystanders is known, so the Waco action is also applicable.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 03, 2006 02:31PM
> Robert M Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > So, why aren't you blaming the enemy for placing
> > children (and other civilians) into danger in the
> > first place?
>
> The people we're bombing in Iraq are mostly locals
> resisting our occupation. We target them in their homes
> through the use of informants. Most of them probably
> have no idea they're being targeted, otherwise they'd
> leave, dontcha think?

Resiting. So, they aren’t innocent civilians.

> > You ignored that intent thing again.
>
> No, I haven't. If you drop a bomb on a residential area
> where you know it will kill innocent civilians then you
> INTEND to kill them. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
> Just wishful thinking that the blast radius won't
> encompass the area inhabited by innocents or be
> contained to the room the targeted individual(s)
> inhabit does not absolve you of responsiblity. It's
> like tossing a hand grenade at a crowd of people to
> kill one bad guy, then saying "We only intended to kill
> one person, so we're not to blame for all the others who
> died."

Because you haven’t proved the intent to kill those specific innocent people.

> > I haven't changed my perspective at all. All I've
> > done is point out one that you disagree with while
> > including factor(s) you insist on dismissing,
> > one(s) that impact(s) the big picture.
>
> Can you restate that? It doesn't make sense to me
> grammatically.

My perspective hasn’t changed. You disagree with it. I’ve pointed out a factor you didn’t account for in your posts. You continually dismiss said factor, despite the fact that it is important.

> > Almost forgot... Sanctions have nothing to do with
> > the discussion. Why do you insist on bring up
> > things that are irrelevant?
>
> We were discussing the culpability of those whose
> actions result in the deaths of innocents even though
> they didn't intend to harm them. Sanctions were
> intended to force Saddam from power, but they only
> entrenched him and gave him the ability to demonize us
> to his people, proving their suffering was our fault,
> not his. Sanctions killed a million and a half Iraqis,
> and we said, through "Mad" Albright that killing a half
> million kids was "worth it," thereby accepting
> responsibity for those kids deaths. This goes beyond
> any question of what our intent was, to admitting it.

Irrelevant but if you insist on using it in your discussion then why aren’t you blaming Saddam for this? The sanctions were a direct result of _his_ actions.

> If I remember
> > correctly, there was much more to the Koresh
> > situation than you've offered in your post. That
> > the Koresh situation is also irrelevant is a
> > different matter entirely.
>
> We knew there were innocent women and children in that
> building, and that they'd been tipped off,

They were tipped off. They chose to stay in harms way. Interesting.

> so the
> surprize element that might have minimized resistance
> was lost, yet Reno went ahead anyway. Knowing that
> there were innocents in the building and that Koresh
> had taught doomsday, resist-to-death theology, she
> ordered a full scale attack on the building anyway,
> showing that she intended to cause innocents deaths.

The police went into the compound with the sole purpose of _killing_ the innocent civilians? Absurd.

> He
> could have been picked up on one of his forays to town,
> but she evidently intended to send a message to any
> other such groups that resistance was futile.

Evidence?

> This discussion is about responsibility for unintended
> deaths when knowledge of the effects of our actions on
> bystanders is known, so the Waco action is also
> applicable.

Not if I have to base my conclusion on what you’ve offered in your post.

Robert

P.S. This is fun! smiling smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 03, 2006 03:41PM
Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Resiting. So, they aren’t innocent civilians.

As I would resist if Iraqis bombed my country, destroying water and sewage treatment plants, spreading disease (or is biological warfare OK by you?), electrical power generation plants (causing food spoilage, lack of street lighting for security and making normal life impossible - how long would you put up with two hours of electricity per day?), bombing hospitals and firing on ambulances, raising the cost of fuel exponentially so that you couldn't afford to run your generator, and everyone in the neighborhood was running them just to keep going, destroying bridges, firing indiscriminately on civilian vehicles that approach a checkpoint too rapidly, perhaps because they're in a hurry to get a wounded child to a hospital, stealing your countries natural resources, forcing you into unemployment, arming gangs of religious zealots to exact revenge for Saddam's brutal excesses... need I go on? We've made life in Iraq Hell for its people, and our use of DU ensures it will remain that way for thousands of years. Hundreds of thousands of people have left the country as refugees, leaving behind their homes and most of their possessions.

Would you not resist if this were done to you?

> Because you haven’t proved the intent to kill
> those specific innocent people.

OK. Gather all your friends and relatives and neighbors into a room, and someone who hates one of you enough to kill them tosses a grenade into the room to kill that person. Will you still say they have no intent to kill all the other people present? They intend their action to kill one person, but they know that the means by which they choose to do that kills everyone in that room, so they obviously intended to do so, whether they claim to only want one of you dead.

> Irrelevant but if you insist on using it in your
> discussion then why aren’t you blaming Saddam for
> this? The sanctions were a direct result of _his_
> actions.

The sanctions harmed the people Saddam oppressed, not him. Our screwball theory was that by making them suffer enough they'd rise up and overthrow him. The flaw in the theory was (duh) that he was a brutal dictator we installed and armed sufficiently that he could brutally put down any resistance.

> They were tipped off. They chose to stay in harms
> way. Interesting.

They knew a huge military force was coming to kill them using tanks and helicopters. Where could they go?

> The police went into the compound with the sole
> purpose of _killing_ the innocent civilians?
> Absurd.

Again, we return to the concept of intent. The ATF cowboys went in shooting and confirmed what Koresh had told his followers about the intent of the gov't to kill them.

> > He
> > could have been picked up on one of his
> forays to town,
> > but she evidently intended to send a message
> to any
> > other such groups that resistance was
> futile.
>
> Evidence?

Koresh could have been arrested peacefully.
[www.google.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 03, 2006 06:08PM
> > Resiting. So, they aren’t innocent civilians.
>
> As I would resist if Iraqis bombed my country,
> destroying water and sewage treatment plants, spreading
> disease (or is biological warfare OK by you?),
> electrical power generation plants (causing food
> spoilage, lack of street lighting for security and
> making normal life impossible - how long would you put
> up with two hours of electricity per day?), bombing
> hospitals and firing on ambulances, raising the cost of
> fuel exponentially so that you couldn't afford to run
> your generator, and everyone in the neighborhood was
> running them just to keep going, destroying bridges,
> firing indiscriminately on civilian vehicles that
> approach a checkpoint too rapidly, perhaps because
> they're in a hurry to get a wounded child to a
> hospital, stealing your countries natural resources,
> forcing you into unemployment, arming gangs of
> religious zealots to exact revenge for Saddam's brutal
> excesses... need I go on? We've made life in Iraq Hell
> for its people, and our use of DU ensures it will
> remain that way for thousands of years. Hundreds of
> thousands of people have left the country as refugees,
> leaving behind their homes and most of their
> possessions.
>
> Would you not resist if this were done to you?

So they aren’t as innocent as you would have us believe. You can’t have it both ways.

> > Because you haven’t proved the intent to kill
> > those specific innocent people.
>
> OK. Gather all your friends and relatives and neighbors
> into a room, and someone who hates one of you enough to
> kill them tosses a grenade into the room to kill that
> person. Will you still say they have no intent to kill
> all the other people present? They intend their action
> to kill one person, but they know that the means by
> which they choose to do that kills everyone in that
> room, so they obviously intended to do so, whether they
> claim to only want one of you dead.

One target. The intent is to kill that one individual. Anyone else is accidental death. You like to take a jump to extend that intent to everyone despite the fact that you can’t support it. Now, if you’d said _everyone_ was the target, then it’d be a different matter. You didn’t do that, though.

> > Irrelevant but if you insist on using it in your
> > discussion then why aren’t you blaming Saddam for
> > this? The sanctions were a direct result of _his_
> > actions.
>
> The sanctions harmed the people Saddam oppressed, not
> him. Our screwball theory was that by making them
> suffer enough they'd rise up and overthrow him. The
> flaw in the theory was (duh) that he was a brutal
> dictator we installed and armed sufficiently that he
> could brutally put down any resistance.

You sidestepped the question entirely. Try again.

> > They were tipped off. They chose to stay in harms
> > way. Interesting.
>
> They knew a huge military force was coming to kill them
> using tanks and helicopters. Where could they go?

They could’ve surrendered. Instead, they chose to stay in harm’s way. Interesting. BTW, you know there wasn’t “huge military force”, right? Feel free to look at one of the links you provided for more details. The prase “intentional disinformation” comes to mind.

> > The police went into the compound with the sole
> > purpose of _killing_ the innocent civilians?
> > Absurd.
>
> Again, we return to the concept of intent. The ATF
> cowboys went in shooting and confirmed what Koresh had
> told his followers about the intent of the gov't to
> kill them.

Factual support? It’ll remain absurd until you can offer evidence to the contrary.

> > > He
> > > could have been picked up on one of his
> > forays to town,
> > > but she evidently intended to send a message
> > to any
> > > other such groups that resistance was
> > futile.
> >
> > Evidence?
>
> Koresh could have been arrested peacefully.
> [www.google.com]

If it was that easy, then why didn’t they arrest him? I guess they might’ve been concerned about his arsenal of illegal weapons.

Robert

P.S. Fun - lol!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Refurbvirgin
Date: February 03, 2006 08:07PM
Robert M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So they aren’t as innocent as you would have us
> believe. You can’t have it both ways.

Many of those who were glad to see us throw Saddam from power have now seen that we are worse than he was. One way this happens is when we bomb an insurgent's house, killing innocent civilians that happen to live next door. As one U.S. general lamented, "for every insurgent we kill we create three more."

> One target. The intent is to kill that one
> individual. Anyone else is accidental death. You
> like to take a jump to extend that intent to
> everyone despite the fact that you can’t support
> it. Now, if you’d said _everyone_ was the target,
> then it’d be a different matter. You didn’t do
> that, though.

Do you even read what I post? I don't think so. I give up, Robert. I hope you have better luck justifying killing innocent people when you come before your creator.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Jimmy Carter: give hamas a chance.
Posted by: Robert M
Date: February 03, 2006 08:27PM
Refurb,

I read each of your posts. Some of the things you said had merit but the majority of it was lacking, in my opinion. Your frustration was readily apparent. smiling smiley

Robert
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 267
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018