Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Thats ridiculous - OF COURSE you can kill that many by accident. (NOT ONE accident) - but in war people die - innocent people - even if not intended

    Are you saying that the US deliberate goes after civilians?

    if that is so then why dont they kill more? There are only two main explanations why they dont kill more civilians:

    1. They cant
    2. They dont want to (ie dont intend to)

    We all know that 1 is not true ...

    SO whats your conclusion ?


    To me you need evidence for intent - I see non for the US intent
    For the terrorists - my evidence is them saying they wish to kill civilians
    Being one of the relatives of 20000 people who have died, it must be extremely reassuring to be told that dont worry we didnt mean to kill them it was an accident.

    The effect of killing so many wether by accident, neglect or deliberately is the same. Many more have lost loved one and i personally dont think most Afghans really care if the bomb that killed the rest of the family had been rigorous tested with the latest laser precision weapon system and wasnt meant to be there. The effect is the same. And that i imagine must be a pretty scarely feeling being completely helpless at the hands of luck and the whims of those in the US airforce who decide whether your village looks like a rebel strong hold or village. The fact that many more have died is evidence enought for me to see that the USA does not have any moral ground to stand on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    ok vienna would you like to put an estimate on how many people have died in iraq and afghanistan alone before you start critising any more of my views since i would be very interested to here how many you think have actually died.

    people? werent you talking about civilians?

    10341..at best.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Why on earth does she have to come up with a figure to say that you have no basis for yours?

    A: "I think that there are 1 trillion flies in west africa"
    B: "How do you know that, are you making it up"
    C: "Well you come up with a better figure!"

    Doesn't make much sense huh?
    hehe, didnt think of it like that..
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Being one of the relatives of 20000 people who have died, it must be extremely reassuring to be told that dont worry we didnt mean to kill them it was an accident.

    The effect of killing so many wether by accident, neglect or deliberately is the same. Many more have lost loved one and i personally dont think most Afghans really care if the bomb that killed the rest of the family had been rigorous tested with the latest laser precision weapon system and wasnt meant to be there. The effect is the same. And that i imagine must be a pretty scarely feeling being completely helpless at the hands of luck and the whims of those in the US airforce who decide whether your village looks like a rebel strong hold or village. The fact that many more have died is evidence enought for me to see that the USA does not have any moral ground to stand on.
    Again your argument is really quite strange, and entails some strange results.

    You are saying that the issue is effect - ie "did Person A kill person B"
    You therefore disregard all mental elements from your determination of fault.
    On that basis a person who drives his car carefully and yet kills someone, is the same as someone who sees Granny at the level crossing and slams on the gas...

    Of course having someone die that you love is serious, and quite commonly you dont really care how it happened - HOWEVER that does not mean the issue of the itnent was not relevant to the question of whether or not it is terrorism or the morality of the act.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Why on earth does she have to come up with a figure to say that you have no basis for yours?

    A: "I think that there are 1 trillion flies in west africa"
    B: "How do you know that, are you making it up"
    C: "Well you come up with a better figure!"

    Doesn't make much sense huh?
    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
    i am using for my jusification of nearly half that figure and http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/ provides figures for Afghanistan and both of these studies are very tight on the numbers they have included so the figure is likely to be far higher and nearer the 20,000 i was talking about.
    The reason i ask Vienna for an estimate is because if she doesnt think that many have died how many does she think have died? I have provided evidence for my point i want to see her evidence otherwise she has no right to critise unless she is going to back up her claims with evidence. oh and this might also be of interest
    http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-USA
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    people? werent you talking about civilians?

    10341..at best.
    civilans?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
    i am using for my jusification of nearly half that figure and http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/ provides figures for Afghanistan and both of these studies are very tight on the numbers they have included so the figure is likely to be far higher and nearer the 20,000 i was talking about.
    The reason i ask Vienna for an estimate is because if she doesnt think that many have died how many does she think have died? I have provided evidence for my point i want to see her evidence otherwise she has no right to critise unless she is going to back up her claims with evidence. oh and this might also be of interest
    http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index...pen&of=ENG-USA

    Fair enough you provided evidence - I see your point

    Now kindly produce some evidence that the US intended to kill them?
    NO?
    Didnt think so
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Again your argument is really quite strange, and entails some strange results.

    You are saying that the issue is effect - ie "did Person A kill person B"
    You therefore disregard all mental elements from your determination of fault.
    On that basis a person who drives his car carefully and yet kills someone, is the same as someone who sees Granny at the level crossing and slams on the gas...

    Of course having someone die that you love is serious, and quite commonly you dont really care how it happened - HOWEVER that does not mean the issue of the itnent was not relevant to the question of whether or not it is terrorism or the morality of the act.
    ok lets put it another way,
    im a police man and every now and again a criminal pops out and i have to use my gun. The policeman might well kill the crimminal 100% of the time however if every 5 times he pulls his gun he also shots a bystander i dont think i am going to be on the force for long.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    ok lets put it another way,
    im a police man and every now and again a criminal pops out and i have to use my gun. The policeman might well kill the crimminal 100% of the time however if every 5 times he pulls his gun he also shots a bystander i dont think i am going to be on the force for long.
    Finally HE SEES THE LIGHT!

    Yes of course - you can quibble with the morality of the US approach - but that is NOT THE POINT

    Comparing the US with those who do not kill civilians at all is like the difference between:

    A) the cop who draws his gun, kills the criminal and 5% of the time a bystander
    and
    B) a cop who never draws his gun and fires

    The issue is the difference between the US and terrorism; which is like the difference between:

    A) same as above
    and
    B) th ecop who draws his gun and tries to shoot as many bystanders as possible

    I hope you understand that saying position A is worse than B in the first case DOES NOT MEAN that it is worse in the second. You are free to object to the US approach - but it is NOT terrorism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    civilans?
    yes.

    *speciez runs off to check www.iraqbodycount.com*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    yes.

    *speciez runs off to check www.iraqbodycount.com*
    Prehaps you could enlighten me to the moral difference to being able to accidetially being able to kill only 10000 compared to 20000 since for me the difference between these two figures is minimal and that is still 5times the event that was used to justify the war
    oh and i have already shown that its more than that so thanks for passing up the oppertunity to re-estimate your figure
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    Prehaps you could enlighten me to the moral difference to being able to accidetially being able to kill only 10000 compared to 20000 since for me the difference between these two figures is minimal and that is still 5times the event that was used to justify the war
    oh and i have already shown that its more than that so thanks for passing up the oppertunity to re-estimate your figure
    The justification for the war was NOT the 3000 deaths on September 11th
    The Justification was that it would PREVENT future deaths.

    Rightly or wrongly the US and many think that the war, and a war on "terror" in general will prevent millions of deaths. So really to compare the body count at present is irrelevant - its not merely PAY BACK
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    The justification for the war was NOT the 3000 deaths on September 11th
    The Justification was that it would PREVENT future deaths.

    Rightly or wrongly the US and many think that the war, and a war on "terror" in general will prevent millions of deaths. So really to compare the body count at present is irrelevant - its not merely PAY BACK
    oh so we will go and kill a load of civlians in iraq and afghanistan after all if anything will annoy muslims more must be good in preventing people from listening to fanatically messages and getting pissed off at the USA. after all i wouldnt be pissed if the USA killed my brother would i?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    oh so we will go and kill a load of civlians in iraq and afghanistan after all if anything will annoy muslims more must be good in preventing people from listening to fanatically messages and getting pissed off at the USA. after all i wouldnt be pissed if the USA killed my brother would i?
    Seems to me that most civilian casualties in Iraq are the result of Iraqis blowing themselves up. Every day there are bomb blasts injuring and killing Iraqis. Is this the work of the US Marines?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    oh so we will go and kill a load of civlians in iraq and afghanistan after all if anything will annoy muslims more must be good in preventing people from listening to fanatically messages and getting pissed off at the USA. after all i wouldnt be pissed if the USA killed my brother would i?

    Did you read my post? Im beginging to doubt your literacy. I said that RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY - that is what they think.

    You are saying that they would be wrong to justify, or could not justify killing Iraqs and Afgahnis up to 20k of them, because of 3000 deaths on Sep 11th

    ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING IT FOR THAT REASON - THEY THINK (THINK THINK THINK THINK) THAT THEY ARE PREVENTING DEATHS.

    Whether or not they are correct is another matter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Finally HE SEES THE LIGHT!

    Yes of course - you can quibble with the morality of the US approach - but that is NOT THE POINT

    Comparing the US with those who do not kill civilians at all is like the difference between:

    A) the cop who draws his gun, kills the criminal and 5% of the time a bystander
    and
    B) a cop who never draws his gun and fires

    The issue is the difference between the US and terrorism; which is like the difference between:

    A) same as above
    and
    B) th ecop who draws his gun and tries to shoot as many bystanders as possible

    I hope you understand that saying position A is worse than B in the first case DOES NOT MEAN that it is worse in the second. You are free to object to the US approach - but it is NOT terrorism
    except that there are alot more of the type A than type B and type A are better at doing it, since they have bigger gunds, so it is not as clear cut as you make out
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Did you read my post? Im beginging to doubt your literacy. I said that RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY - that is what they think.

    You are saying that they would be wrong to justify, or could not justify killing Iraqs and Afgahnis up to 20k of them, because of 3000 deaths on Sep 11th

    ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING IT FOR THAT REASON - THEY THINK (THINK THINK THINK THINK) THAT THEY ARE PREVENTING DEATHS.

    Whether or not they are correct is another matter.
    ok i accept what they think totally and i think its wrong, what do you think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Prehaps you could enlighten me to the moral difference to being able to accidetially being able to kill only 10000 compared to 20000
    only killing 10,000 people is better than 20,000.

    since for me the difference between these two figures is minimal and that is still 5times the event that was used to justify the war
    10,000 extra deaths is minimal and this was because of a pitiful 3,000 who perished? youve got a heart, i can tell!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    except that there are alot more of the type A than type B and type A are better at doing it, since they have bigger gunds, so it is not as clear cut as you make out
    Again you are dealign with the effect not the morality

    More people are killed in the UK by bad driving than by murder - does that mean that bad drivers are worse people?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    ok i accept what they think totally and i think its wrong, what do you think?

    I think they are misguided - I think a "War on terror" is akin to a "war on crime" or a "war on drugs" except that its worse - the harder you fight the more terror... its not the case that the harder you fight the more drugs or crime...

    In the end its a bit like Hulk - you keep shooting him it just makes it worse.

    However - I think you also have to consider the options - what else should the US and UK do? Many Islamists in this world want a "GLOBAL ISLAMIC STATE under sharia law ... If that is at stake I WILL TAKE UP ARMS.

    **** YOU IF YOU WANT TO IMPOSE YOUR IRRATIONAL RIDICULOUS OPRESSIVE VERSON OF ISLAM ON ME

    These people are anti-democractic and anti our way of life... DO I think the present approach is correcT? No. But I dont rellay have much of an alternative ... so I think ill keep my mouth shut
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.