How Much Blood is on Your Hands? See how you score!

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by steveknows

 

Your statement,
"There was nothing insulting in what I said other than an apposing view"

Your words....
"You must have alot of faith in the rubbish you post.

Because you hide where you come from and bag a particular culture.

Because you just bagged it by way of blowing that floppy trumpet

Any illinformed statement is blowing a floppy trumpet. Is it better to use boring words? Such as " you obviously have failed to look closer at the dynamics of what's going on in the world so you've chosen to blame the everyday person for things that you fail to understand"?

Do you lead by example? I bet you don't.

Do you? Do you shake off all the trappings of the western world? The fact that you're on your pc giving your opinion and being allowed to give that opinion shows that the fact you can actually bag the culture is lost on you and as well as the fact that you can afford a pc and internet access. You're not displaying any true rejection of the culture you're against. Or in other words. You're on a band wagon.

That's what bleeding hearts don't seem to understand when blabbing on

And your OP showed that you don't like the soldiers who's job it is to defend you and the culture which they represent. What's your point with this one?

Yes that's right and the west is under attack supported by people such as yourself.

Yes. the west is under attack and the enemies of our culture have your ear. What's wrong in what I say?

Of course it's beyond you because you have no understanding
that's something you would never understand

You said that you can't find an answer as to why soldiers put thier life on the line for their country. I read your OP so I know that you don't get it.

A bit of rational thought is a scary thing to an irrational person

You're having a go at the west and it appears you have no understanding of why things are how they are. It adds up to.. West bad..must bag. And then you actually get offended when, not just with me but others on the thread who disagree with you like it wasn't how you planned it to be.

Do you actually understand which side you're on?

Well that's a fair question. You live the life of a westerner yet seem to support those who are against our culture. Even going so far as to claim that we've all got blood on our hands. You sir are the offencive one.

You don't understand that Australia isn't part of Britain and you apparently have no concept of geography.

You make out you have an understanding of the western world then you call me a Brit, in an inpolite way might I add, as in it was a departing shot. Only I'm not a Brit so you just displayed more ignorance to the west.

Yes, no insults, just an opposing viewpoint....

You sir. Must have very thin skin.

Sorry for not plotting your location. Try to have a good day, Aussie.

edit on 2-1-2012 by SurrealisticPillow because: (no reason given)

Apart from the flag, Kangaroo and Emu the word Australia is at the bottom of the avatar. No need to plot. Good attempt at a face save though.

reply to post by steveknows

part from the flag, Kangaroo and Emu the word Australia is at the bottom of the avatar. No need to plot. Good attempt at a face save though.

Yes, pretty clear now.

Originally posted by nenothtu

There is a law against holding someone indefinately without trial.

Unless you can cite that law, I'll have to say no there isn't. I've never run across it any where, so toss a citation my way.

In your country, you can be held without charge? By Police or any other authority. I cannot. The Police have a fixed period, which has been extended in response to the threat of ‘terror’, in order to question me. If after that period they have insufficient evidence to charge me, they have to let me go, or go to a Judge or Magistrate and request an extension.

Additionally, as a citizen of a signee of the United Nations Bill of Human Rights, I am entitled to recourse with the Court of Human Rights if at any time my country fails to protect those rights that it affords me. As is every other citizen of a signed country. Additionally, any other national, under threat of and/or suffering persecution in their country, can come to my country and apply for asylum, and fight their case for justice from here.

So while I agree, that specifically, there may be no law on an international level to prevent detention without charge, and subsequently trial, the precedence and provision does exist within the laws of participating states. A UK citizen, for example, held under US law without charge, is entitled to the full support and protection of the UK in order to rectify that situation, and should expect to be extradited at the very least. As is UK national held hostage by Somali pirates. But, and of course it is a very, very, very big but, that is entirely dependent of the individual, their resources, financial and intellectual, and how informed they are of those rights. If you don’t know you have something, how can you exercise it? Either way…we digress…and I do get your point…but also understand mine, that we have been here many times, and those that went before us have tried to make provisions so that we can help ourselves and help prevent injustice. They did that for us, we have to fight as hard to preserve and exercise those rights, as those that are fighting to destroy them for our children.

Originally posted by nenothtu
There is a law regarding the treatment of detainees.

Yes, there is - the Geneva Conventions again. I'd like to see the specific argument contending that those provisions have been violated, and how.

I think we could pull photos up, if we tried just a little, of the various abuses and humiliations that detainees have suffered in recent years.

The US, like the UK, has signed the UN bill of Human Rights, and therefore committed itself to the provision and protection of those rights. To date of course, the US has failed to even make those provisions, fully, available to it’s own people, let alone to those peoples it comes into contact with during the course of conflict.

Originally posted by nenothtu
This is in error. Neither the UN nor NATO are law-making bodies. Their approval or disapproval carries exactly NO weight in legal matters.

I’ll concede NATO, but the UN has the power to prosecute violations of International Law. That is what the International Court of Justice at the Hague is for. As I have always understood it.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Personally, I don't need any commentary from the intelligence services. It's a matter of public record that NATO interfered in the internal affairs of Libya by dropping bombs in support of one side of an internal conflict. In light of that, intelligence involvement is a moot point, and would be more difficult a case to make than making the case against what interference is already known and public.

It is a matter of public record that intelligence operatives were on the ground 6 months prior to kick off too. As I stated it was reported by the BBC. They also reported that those operatives, and their trainees, were on the ground during those air strikes, providing targeting information. So for me, when I have the such a big picture to work from, I know that there was absolutely no need for any collateral damage. The planes just provided the public show. Tell me, from your experience, why, if they were that deeply in there, didn’t they just do the decent thing and carry out a straightforward coup, and take out the leadership in a single airstrike? All things considered, weighing it up, they coulda? Why the pretense?

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm of the opinion that it's not my world to change. We (the US) have trouble enough at home to work on changing, and the rest of the world ought to be capable of looking out for itself for a while until we get ourselves sorted out. I've never been very big on policing the world - if it's not our problem, and can't be made our problem, then we've got no dog in that fight. Iraq was one such situation, Libya another, and Syria yet another. We had no business kicking around in any of those places when we did.

Again, I agree, but we did, and that is what I want us to stop doing. It is my world though, and while most of it I wouldn’t even consider changing, there are some things that are preventing others from living in peace. I want them to enjoy the peace I do. I think it’s only fair.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I'm not sure I understand you here, but I think I do. Allow me to throw out a story by way of illustration. Most people who know me personally don't really know that much about my history. I'm neither Sergeant Rock nor Rambo - I'm just a tall scrawny guy among the crowds. Most know that I'm not to be trifled with, but that's more a function of my bad attitude than a function of practical demonstrations of going around tearing folks up. I just don't do that. I don't find it to be necessary in most cases. I tend to see most situations differently than other folks, and find that there are damned few that really, truly, call for direct action, where other folks will just jump.

My son, however, does know some of my history. He spent his childhood wanting to be "just like dad", and always had intentions of joining the service (which I did not do, by the way - but it was the only way he could figure out to get himself on to a battle field, where I HAVE been). he had visions of glory and honor and all that crap that kids think it is, which were fostered and nourished by a friend of mine who is a former Marine, feeding that fantasy. I've always discouraged all that flag waving baloney, and tried to explain to him how it really was. It's not parades and confetti, glory and honor. It's rain, and mud, and blood, and dead bodies that would look more at home in a butcher shop than they do laying in the road. Still, most of what I said didn't sink in to him in any sort of visceral way.

One evening, he wanted to watch some war movie or another, so we sat and watched it. One particular scene cut a little close to the bone, and it brought tears to my eyes. He'd never seen that happen before, ever, in his whole life.

THAT got his attention, and helped him to adjust his priorities more than all the preaching I could have ever done. That brought it home to his gut. That gave him an understanding of what it took to be me, and more importantly, perhaps, in his own words "what it took away" from me. It made him pay closer attention to the other things I said, and evaluate them in a different light.

You're right about passing on the lessons learned from mistakes. Kids WILL make enough mistakes of their own to pass on, and shouldn't have to do over again the mistakes we made, reinvent the wheel, and relearn what could have been taught less painfully. It's been said that anyone who never screws up isn't doing anything TO screw up. Everyone will make their own mistakes as they go along, and I don't think they should have to make mine, too.

You understood me perfectly, thank you that was just the answer I was hoping for, and you have nothing but my respect.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Ah. I wasn't aware that anything EVER makes civilians "legitimate targets". Sure, they get graunched in huge numbers, sometimes indiscriminately and sometimes they get targeted (i.e. Dresden, Hiroshima, etc), but I'd never seen any legal justification that made that "ok", As far as I'm concerned, it's never ok - but that's just me, and I don't make policy.

Legitimate, really, only means when someone does something and gets away with it. If we take your examples...we weren't punished for Dresden...we weren't punished for Hiroshima...the Germans were punished for all their crimes though...therefore if you lose it is not legitimate, but if you win, it is. That seems pretty clear, on a legal basis, to me.

And please do not under-estimate yourself, it takes an adult to know right and wrong, rather than need someone to tell 'em. Unfortunately the basis of some militaries is the breaking of young men into 'Yes, Sir' drones, which in the right hands can work wonders, but all you need is one incompetent officer and you have a My Lai on your hands.

I understand the world that we live in, and the many facets that lurk beyond the sight of most, but most of us choose to ignore certain realities. You don't, you have obviously lived in it, and emerged, seemingly with your integrity intact. I am sure, quite apart from the young man who learnt what to live and die by the sword truly means, that it is the professionalism that gets the job done quickly, and hopefully cleanly. You get paid to do a job, and you do it. The rest is between you and yourself.

My sole objection, in any of this, is, if you have a situation where you have to create ambivalence towards, or dehumanisation of, your 'opponent' or 'enemy', in order to over-ride your natural sense of right and wrong. That is what leads to abuses at the ground level in terms of atrocities against civilians. At the top level, if that attitude is not disciplined, and is in fact encouraged, that, to me, represents a legitimising of civilians as targets in the psychological sense.

While I am not so naive as to believe that we can return to a time when warfare was conducted on a designated battlefield, nor do I think we should allow it to continue in the direction that it is going in unchecked. The framework exists, but it requires empowering people to stand up for their rights, and also to ensure that professional forces uphold a certain standard of conduct, which in some cases should also involve supporting those personnel who refuse to carry out orders that they know contravene those rights. As in, a soldier should know that it is their responsibility to refuse an order that they knows is 'wrong' or illegal, and that if they fail to do so they will be personally accountable for that action. Every soldier should understand that, and the International court should enforce it. That is all that I require. You, on the otherhand, and your line of work, as I am sure you know, offers none of the same 'supposed' protections. You know that if you commit an illegal act in the country that you commit it in, then you are liable to face prosecution, if caught...quite besides from the moral issues at hand, you make a decision based on risk relative to return whether to take on that job...I presume. This, in principle, I have no issue with, you're an adult...like you my only issue, and the major cause of abuse against civilians, is that most soldiers or military personnel do not make a rational adult decision based on risk against return...they do it based on a belief system...and by doing so, they put their faith in others to know the difference of right and wrong in any given situation, and will kill indiscriminately if ordered to do so.

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow


The turth is that your congress, has use your retirement benefits since 1960, to fund, train, arm the same people who are shooting back in the middle east. and they will not replace that money, so when S.S.A. tells you that there is no funds its because the income tax deductions are not coming in due to high unemployment, so that in a way put blood on all our hands because we have been asleep at the switch, this time the switch is NOV, 2012, awake yet, No its because the White House trolls sites like ATS, and removes content. also this site can be extinct with the new law sign in secret that any country can ask to remove sites without due process, countrys like china, iran, can have IPO's close down.

3.
i'm ok with that.
the system has advantages.
take but not to much.
thats the rule.

hope that helps..

reply to post by bone13

Well, the U.S. Congress stains everything they touch red. Same with the executive branch.
Most of them aren't really human. That is the only way to explain their actions. They get paid to essentially kill innocent people for commodities.

reply to post by kmarx

3 is getting up there. Perhaps with some work you can get down to a 2?
"hope that helps" means what?

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

i just hope it helps. for whatever purpose.
and why in HIS name would i want to lower than a 3?
maybe the problem is that you need to get back in touch with your inner predator.
blood on my hands?
i was eating spaghetti while typing this.

kind regards.

reply to post by kmarx

My "inner predator"....interesting concept I must admit.
Perhaps a thread is in order to address this.
"How much do you suppress your inner predator"?
0. You have evolved.
1. ?
May need some help here.