that's pretty broad...I mean I do know D.C didn't launch poisonous gas on women and children, minus nam, but thats a whole other debate
You're right, only drones.. Oh yeah and this.. edit: Okay maybe not drones per-say while Saddam was in power, but DC has been committing attrocities w/tax dollars for generations. Oh shit, you said minus nam. I think it's still relevant personally..
And he still took less lives than the united states has in the last twenty years alone, let alone an extended history if you will. I also found it interesting that the us military does not attempt to keep an accurate count of civilian casualties, in this day and age where it has never been easier to keep track of such a vital statistic. I wonder why...
Nam was a fucking mess, obviously no one had this scene in mind when they were dropping agent orange, but they also weren't just trying to kill off a sect of innocent people because of their religious beliefs, Comparing who d.c killed in wars, and who someone killed in genocide is apples to oranges, where did you read the U.S doesn't keep count of civilians killed, anytime one is it makes the headlines, the only reason they might not is because theres plenty of other agencies that do
This pile of ashes looks like it was about 147 people Jim. Yep, sounds about right Fred, case closed.
I don't know man, I don't trust the US gov to keep an accurate count of civillians its killed. Or at least, if it keeps the count, for that to be the number that makes its way to the public. My bad btw posting that when you said minus nam, I read the first part of that sentence and got so heated I went and got the link of that picture without finishing the sentence
Its not apples and oranges at all, its just looking at two different sides of the same fruit. General Tommy Franks stated for the record in 2003 that "We dont do body counts". Its possible an independent agency keeps a rough tally, but theres no way for them to be as accurate as the military could be. The estimate for this decades iraq war alone is over a hundred thousand civilian casualties due to american attacks, which is absurd. If anyone came to america and killed 100, 000 civilians I cant imagine what we would do in retaliation. Its genocide, just with a different nametag pinned to it.
Hahaha ya "Dude theres no way america would use chemical weap.... ohhh wait....." I did the same thing once haha
Murder is murder, period. It doesn't matter if one is wearing an official state-issued costume and has a state-issued gun, the immorality of taking someone's life who isn't threatening you still stands. And it isn't less moral for the leader of Country X to commit mass-murder than it is for the leader of Country Y to do it.
Unfortunately I am inclined to feel the same. And I have seen other estimates that have said the true number is over a million Iraqis killed.. I suppose we have no way of knowing the truth but regardles... FUCK man
Alright I can see your point of view, But what I am saying is that there is a clear distinction between innocent casualties of war who were in the wrong fucking place at the wrong fucking time, and innocent people who were hunted down because of their religious beleifs. Murder is not murder actually, that's why the courts have so many degrees of it
Yeah man so fucked up, meanwhile theyve got us all back here in the states waving our little flags and praising "freedom" and "democracy". Its a massive crock of shit if you ask me. I just hope being aware of the lie can be as effective as knowing the truth, but I kinda doubt it. As long as we have a media like we do we'll never know the truth.
Yes, there are degrees, but broadly it means the deliberate taking of an innocent's life. So you are saying that there is a moral difference between those killed through "collateral damage" and those who are targeted directly?
Yes I am saying there is a difference between a person knowingly taking someones life for a bullshit reason, and someone who dropped a bomb on a camp that was thought to be filled with insurgents, but instead just was a family
Yeah true there is a difference, but id argue that going to their country and blowing up the home and cities they live in is just the same as seeking them out lol. Its not that they were in the "wrong" place at any time, many of em were just chillin at home, or in their town where you should be able to expect to remain in one piece lol we just put our bombs in the "wrong" place and then have the balls to just brush it off as " oh sucks dude, thats war - maybe you shoulda moved out of our way". If i were Iraqi id probably be pissed the fuck off too haha. Plus, courts in america stand for anything but justice hence the fact that there are different definitions of murder lol
In your second example, the bomber is wrong for 1) aggressing against another, and 2) trespassing. Every human being has the inherent right to defend himself, his family, his home, and his community against any aggressor -- by whatever means are available to him. If I'm a Mafia hitman and I'm ordered to kill "Joe," and I go into the restaurant where he's eating, waste him but three innocent people are killed in the crossfire, am I only guilty of killing Joe? Tough cookies for the three dead innocents? IMO, moral laws either apply to all men and all institutions, or they have no meaning.
There is no such thing as trespassing in a war zone, at least for a pilot flying missions So when a u.s squad is under fire from insurgents and they call in air support but due to some reason the bomb hits the wrong building be it human or mechanical error, the pilot is wrong? and please don't try to defend radical jihadists
The US was the aggressor, and its acts are no more excusable than were Hitler's acts of aggression. If so, then by what moral yardstick? Patriotism? Going where you weren't invited is trespassing. And as I said before, anyone has the natural right to defend themselves against aggressors. It's not any more complicated than that, but if one is wrapped up in the flag of one's country then it can be confusing.