Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation?

1…67891012»

Comments

  • #552
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    The Hague and Geneva conventions and protocols are available online and regulate the conduct of war. Which articles did they break, to substantiate your statement?

    NTM

    Quite a few and I'd love to discuss them all if I had time, but lets look first at the 6 day bombardment of Baghdad. An independent report by the UN stated that there were massive numbers of civilian casualties and reports following since then have generally considered the bombing of Baghdad to be "the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that U.S. forces have fought since Vietnam."


    You want specific articles:
    Geneva Conventions, part IV, Article 48
    "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and, accordingly, shall direct their operations only against military objectives."

    Nuremberg conventions, Principle VI
    "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or destruction not justified by military necessity."


    I'm sure everyone will have a justification for this though. I'll keep going, but I just don't have the time at the moment.


  • #553
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Manic Moran wrote: »


    Name five. I don't mean civilian targets that were hit unintentionally, or that at the time were believed to be legitimate, I mean five kown civilian targets that were specifically targetted despite having no military function. (So bridges, Ministry of Communications HQ etc are out).



    Unlawful enemy combatants, it should be noted.



    If they're guerillas, what's the problem? They were not being trained to place bombs in market places to kill shoppers, were they?



    The Hague and Geneva conventions and protocols are available online and regulate the conduct of war. Which articles did they break, to substantiate your statement?

    NTM

    Oh right sorry I missed the point you were making but I see it now. So the planes that crashed into the twin towers were acts of terrorism as they were against civilian targets but the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was and act of war as that was against a legitimate military target and the ends justify the means ? is that right

    Unlawful enemy combatants? how do you figure that and also there was no evidence in a lot of cases that they were combatants legal or illegal!

    “ Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war. ”

    —- Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention


  • #554
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    gizmo wrote: »
    So Keith Olbermann's numerous anti-war and anti-Bush rants on MSNBC never happened then?


    No country will ever show that kid of footage, whether it is America or not.

    As for the American public remaining misinformed, how were you able to inform yourself? Are these American people not able to access the same information as you?


    Not only were the Democrats in one case divided (Senate) and in another opposed (House) to the war at the time but even those who voted for it have since come and admitted it was a mistake. You won't find that kind of thing happening on the Republican side. Then there was the issue of Universal Health Care, the economic stimulus package...all major issues where both parties were on opposite sides. Also, to call MSNBC "slightly" liberal is a joke right? :p


    I have no love for America just in the same way I have no hate towards it, I just try and debate some of these issues rationally and assign blame when it was warranted as I have done so already when discussing issues with OisinT. If I've made a mistake then by all means correct me and supply some proof and I'll be glad to read over it.

    Is an anti bush or anti war rant supplying information? or just opinion that is easily marginalised and ignored?

    Why is it that America does show what the Israelis do yet they show the footage of what the palestinians do? if as you say no country will show that?

    In Ireland we enjoy probably the most freedom of media in the world although that is slowly changing. There is a huge difference between reporting the news and editorial comment. News is the unbiased reporting of the facts and we still have that trough the Irish Times and RTE. In the UK the BBC is fairly much unbiased in it's willingness to report the facts, not to sure about the print media as I don't read any british newspapers.

    Name me one change in US foreign policy since the Clinton regime?

    What proof exactly would you require? a signed confession by an American politician saying he knew that Iraq was going to use chemical weapons supplied by American companies?


  • #555
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    stephen_n wrote: »
    Oh right sorry I missed the point you were making but I see it now. So the planes that crashed into the twin towers were acts of terrorism as they were against civilian targets but the plane that crashed into the Pentagon was and act of war as that was against a legitimate military target and the ends justify the means ?

    Close. The Pentagon is a legitimate target, even for unconventional attacks. In much the same manner as the Beruit barracks bombing. The catch was the manner in which it was attacked: Hijacking a civilian airliner and using it as a weapon with passengers aboard is exceeding the bounds of conduct.
    Unlawful enemy combatants? how do you figure that

    They are defined under the Geneva Conventions.
    and also there was no evidence in a lot of cases that they were combatants legal or illegal!

    The problem there is providing evidence that they weren't, either. Until they get processed and investigated, the US can only work on the estimates that they have at the time of capture. Sometimes they were found not to be proven to be combatants and released. That's the problem when your combatants don't distinguish themselves, and presumably why the G.Cs declared them unlawful, to help protect actual non-combatants from the confusion.

    NTM


  • #556
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,116 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    OisinT wrote: »
    Quite a few and I'd love to discuss them all if I had time, but lets look first at the 6 day bombardment of Baghdad. An independent report by the UN stated that there were massive numbers of civilian casualties and reports following since then have generally considered the bombing of Baghdad to be "the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that U.S. forces have fought since Vietnam."


    You want specific articles:
    Geneva Conventions, part IV, Article 48
    "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and, accordingly, shall direct their operations only against military objectives."

    Nuremberg conventions, Principle VI
    "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or destruction not justified by military necessity."


    I'm sure everyone will have a justification for this though. I'll keep going, but I just don't have the time at the moment.
    Are you implying that airmen were given orders to drop bombs on civilians? The Key phrases here are "Distinguish between" and "Wanton destruction" Notice how the convention does not say you can not engage a military objective in or near civilian areas. Nor does it say that civilian causalities constitute war crime.


  • #557
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Overheal wrote: »
    Are you implying that airmen were given orders to drop bombs on civilians? The Key phrases here are "Distinguish between" and "Wanton destruction" Notice how the convention does not say you can not engage a military objective in or near civilian areas. Nor does it say that civilian causalities constitute war crime.
    I disagree. I think the key here is:
    [...]shall direct their operations only against military objectives

    a 6 day bombardment of Baghdad called "shock and awe" (not terrorism?) resulted in high civilian casualties and was likely not necessary militarily.

    I, however, do not have the full details of the operation - just as no one else here does.
    I am merely suggesting that there is a prima facie case to be heard regarding breach of The Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions and the Nuremberg Conventions. That is the way I see it... there is a case to be heard for the above cited reason plus some other breaches (which I'd be happy to discuss given more time).

    If there are justifications for a breach of these conventions then it is a valid defence - just as if you or I were arrested we would be innocent until proven guilty and afforded the opportunity to put forward a defence. The key here is that it is blatant disregard of international law to merely brush off the offences without even hearing them in court.


  • #558
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    gizmo wrote: »
    So Keith Olbermann's numerous anti-war and anti-Bush rants on MSNBC never happened then?


    No country will ever show that kid of footage, whether it is America or not.

    As for the American public remaining misinformed, how were you able to inform yourself? Are these American people not able to access the same information as you?


    Not only were the Democrats in one case divided (Senate) and in another opposed (House) to the war at the time but even those who voted for it have since come and admitted it was a mistake. You won't find that kind of thing happening on the Republican side. Then there was the issue of Universal Health Care, the economic stimulus package...all major issues where both parties were on opposite sides. Also, to call MSNBC "slightly" liberal is a joke right? :p


    I have no love for America just in the same way I have no hate towards it, I just try and debate some of these issues rationally and assign blame when it was warranted as I have done so already when discussing issues with OisinT. If I've made a mistake then by all means correct me and supply some proof and I'll be glad to read over it.

    Utter rubbish.

    Any early criticism of the war by the "liberals" in the US was that the Bush administration was not fighting the war effectively. The democrats have been every bit as bad for war mongering as the republican in the last century. You can go all the way back to Wilson and WW1, Kennedy launching a secret invasion of Cuba, Johnson and Vietnam, Clinton bombing the sh1t out of Belgrade and now Obama escalating war in Afghanistan and even bombing Pakistan. Unfortunately many Irish people have illusions in the democrats. In reality they are a crooked party of the ruling class. In fact they have a worse record of taking backhanders than the republicans and that is saying something.


  • #559
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Overheal wrote: »
    Are you implying that airmen were given orders to drop bombs on civilians? The Key phrases here are "Distinguish between" and "Wanton destruction" Notice how the convention does not say you can not engage a military objective in or near civilian areas. Nor does it say that civilian causalities constitute war crime.

    Yes in Cambodia and Vietnam the USAF were given orders to bomb anything that moved. The USAF engaged in carpet bombing all the way going back to WW2. They were given orders to bomb Japenese cities with the sole objectives of killing civillians. So there is no need to be suprised when NATO ie America bomb another Afghan wedding.


  • #560
    The Highwayman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,227 ✭✭✭The Highwayman


    McDougal wrote: »
    Yes in Cambodia and Vietnam the USAF were given orders to bomb anything that moved. The USAF engaged in carpet bombing all the way going back to WW2. They were given orders to bomb Japenese cities with the sole objectives of killing civillians. So there is no need to be suprised when NATO ie America bomb another Afghan wedding.

    And not forgetting the use of agent orange in Vietnam where the effects are still being felt.


  • #561
    RMD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,662 ✭✭✭RMD


    Overheal wrote: »
    Are you implying that airmen were given orders to drop bombs on civilians? The Key phrases here are "Distinguish between" and "Wanton destruction" Notice how the convention does not say you can not engage a military objective in or near civilian areas. Nor does it say that civilian causalities constitute war crime.

    The fact that cluster bombs were used in civilian areas shows how little distinction they made.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    McDougal wrote: »
    Utter rubbish.
    In 2002, Democrats were divided as a majority (29 for, 21 against) in the Senate and a minority of Democrats in the House (81 for, 126 against) voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq. Since then, many prominent Democrats, such as former Senator John Edwards, have expressed regret about this decision, and have called it a mistake, while others, such as Senator Hillary Clinton have criticized the conduct of the war but not repudiated their initial vote for it (though Clinton later went on to repudiate her stance during the 2008 primaries). Referring to Iraq, in April 2007 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared the war to be "lost" while other Democrats (especially during the 2004 presidential election cycle) accused the President of lying to the public about WMDs in Iraq. Amongst lawmakers, Democrats are the most vocal opponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom and campaigned on a platform of withdrawal ahead of the 2006 mid-term elections.

    So no, not utter rubbish.


  • #563
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,116 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    McDougal wrote: »
    Utter rubbish.

    Any early criticism of the war by the "liberals" in the US was that the Bush administration was not fighting the war effectively.

    If you have it accessible, you should look up the long standing segment on the Daily Show known as Mess O'Potamia. That there was no early criticism of the war in the United States is simply untrue.
    Yes in Cambodia and Vietnam the USAF were given orders to bomb anything that moved. The USAF engaged in carpet bombing all the way going back to WW2. They were given orders to bomb Japenese cities with the sole objectives of killing civillians. So there is no need to be suprised when NATO ie America bomb another Afghan wedding.
    Sources?

    As for Agent Orange can you prove that the side effects were maliciously intended, and not negligent of proper development of the compound?


  • #564
    McDougal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭McDougal


    Overheal wrote: »
    If you have it accessible, you should look up the long standing segment on the Daily Show known as Mess O'Potamia. That there was no early criticism of the war in the United States is simply untrue.

    Sources?

    As for Agent Orange can you prove that the side effects were maliciously intended, and not negligent of proper development of the compound?

    You want me to look up a comedy show?

    And Nixon's and Kissenger's order for the bombing on Cambodia was "Anything that flies on anything that moves". Basically kill everyone. Google it if you don't believe me. But any educated person should be aware of this anyway.


  • #565
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,116 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    McDougal wrote: »
    You want me to look up a comedy show?
    Yes. Late night television. It's swung elections and broke more than it's own share of news stories, interestingly enough. TDS was one of the first programmes to uncover the links between Dick Cheney and Haliburton. Saturday Night Live ruined the McCain campaign.

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/24063
    And Nixon's and Kissenger's order for the bombing on Cambodia was "Anything that flies on anything that moves". Basically kill everyone. Google it if you don't believe me.
    Fair enough. And do you happen to know if this wound up violating convention? What was the aftermath in the UN? Do you happen to know the figures for the civilian casualties? Was the close air support targeting civilians or military objectives? Supply Lines, correct?
    But any educated person should be aware of this anyway.
    No, not really. And if they are brushed up on it, they don't need to be arrogant about it.


  • #566
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    OisinT wrote: »
    a 6 day bombardment of Baghdad called "shock and awe" (not terrorism?)

    Not if it was conducted within the laws of warfare, no.
    resulted in high civilian casualties

    Compared to what other high-intensity conflict carried out in an urban area? I'm thinking places like Groznyy or Beiruit 82, for example. They've been relatively rare recently. You drop a lot of bombs in a city, and a lot of people are going to get killed. Sortof an occupational hazard, really.
    and was likely not necessary militarily.

    Hardly your place to judge that, is it? As long as the targets were military ones, there was no prohibition on their destruction regardless. Laws tend not to reflect a requirement for judgement calls, they tend to be black-and-white. Only the method of their destruction can be called into question, and absent evidence that the US used iron bombs or munitions of dramatic overkill for the target, there's nothing to do even that.
    That is the way I see it... there is a case to be heard for the above cited reason plus some other breaches (which I'd be happy to discuss given more time).

    It seems to me that if there was any such case to be heard, we'd have heard about the incidents long before. If the bombing of a wedding in the remote hills of Afghanistan makes the news, it would seem to be likely that any unfortunate occurrences in a capitol city would probably have been referenced ad nauseum by now. But the biggest complaint seems to be 'The US didn't guard the musea', which itself isn't illegal.
    If there are justifications for a breach of these conventions then it is a valid defence- just as if you or I were arrested we would be innocent until proven guilty and afforded the opportunity to put forward a defence.

    And in that line we have an important distinction. There should be no justifications for a breach of the Conventions or Protocols, at least, certainly none that I can think of. Just like there should be no justification for robbing a bank.

    However. You don't start investigating people for bank-robbing until after it has been determined that the bank was, in fact, robbed. Then you bring people to trial. Until it can be demonstrated that the laws of war were broken, there's nothing to investigate. Waving random statistics around like 'This was the largest loss of civilian casualties since Vietnam caused by the US' is as much evidence of a law of war violation as saying 'Bank of Ireland's cash reserves were suddenly lower on Tuesday' is evidence that BoI was robbed. An interesting fact, but not in any way proof of illegality.

    You need to look at individual actions, and evaluate them accordingly. Was the Ministry of Defence HQ building a valid military target, yes/no? Was the Central Communications Building a valid military target, yes/no. And so on. Come back to me with a 'no', and we'll talk.

    NTM


  • #567
    indough
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭indough


    McDougal wrote: »
    No! cambodia

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu

    incorrect, laos is the country which is commonly yet incorrectly cited as the most heavily bombed country in history, yet the correct answer is vietnam (a lot of it took place during operation rolling thunder)

    laos is the most bombed per capita however at over a ton of explosives per person

    one thing that is for sure is that it definitely wasnt cambodia


  • #568
    old_aussie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation

    No.

    I'd say Indonesia is right up there as on of the most extreme nations.

    Warning very graphic footage in link.

    DO NOT OPEN if you have a weak heart.

    <snip>





  • #569
    meditraitor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,207 ✭✭✭meditraitor


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Not if it was conducted within the laws of warfare, no.
    NTM

    Who's law's? And is there a publication/link I could look up for these law's?


  • #570
    up for anything
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,778 ✭✭✭up for anything


    old_aussie wrote: »
    Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation

    No.

    I'd say Indonesia is right up there as on of the most extreme nations.

    Warning very graphic footage in link.

    DO NOT OPEN if you have a weak heart.




    Fecks sake. You could have said it contained a beheading! Now I have to delete my history so that the children won't click on it and see something that I decided against watching. I thought links like this were not allowed.


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    javaboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    old_aussie wrote: »
    Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation

    No.

    I'd say Indonesia is right up there as on of the most extreme nations.

    Warning very graphic footage in link.

    DO NOT OPEN if you have a weak heart.

    <snip>




    Links to this kind of material (beheading of children) are not allowed. Thanks.


  • #572
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    old_aussie wrote: »
    Is The U.S.A the most extreme Terrorist nation

    No.

    I'd say Indonesia is right up there as on of the most extreme nations.

    Warning very graphic footage in link.

    DO NOT OPEN if you have a weak heart.

    <snip>



    And did the Indonesian state sanction that......?


  • #573
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    meditraitor wrote: »
    Who's law's? And is there a publication/link I could look up for these law's?

    The Geneva Conventions and Hague Declarations are usually considered to be the primary controlling authorities. Shouldn't be hard to find them by the use of Google.

    NTM


  • #574
    Geansai Rua
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 343 ✭✭Geansai Rua


    OOhhhh..
    I made it 50/50


  • #575
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,116 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You'd think this kind of question would swing one way or the other, but 50/50? Huh.


  • #576
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    As I regard the question as rather feckin stupid, I never voted.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement