So, the President May Kill Anybody He Pleases, Right?

by Robert Higgs

September 15, 2008

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs88.html

Among the many cock-and-bull stories set afoot by the Bush administration
during the lead-up to its attack on Iraq was the one about the now-infamous
drones of death. Later, it became sufficiently clear that this alleged
threat had no more substance than the others the administration and the
lapdog mainstream media had served up to a credulous public.

Although the ludicrously primitive Iraqi drones had no capacity whatsoever
to harm the American public, the lethality of U.S. drones is another
matter. Predator drones equipped with Hellfire missiles now provide the
U.S. government with a means of flying over territory that U.S. ground
troops dare not penetrate, observing activities on the ground, and killing
people there with, shall we say, a minimum of due process.

In November 2002, for example, BBC News reported: "America’s Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) carried out an attack in Yemen that killed six
suspected members of Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda network, according to US
officials. The men died when the jeep they were travelling in was hit by a
missile fired from an unmanned CIA plane – believed to be a Predator drone,
the US sources said."

U.S. forces have also used the Predator actively in Afghanistan and, most
recently, in the Waziristan region of Pakistan. Today, I read an account of
a drone attack near the town of Miramshah in North Waziristan that is
reported to have "killed at least 14 people and injured 12 others,"
including "at least six women and children."

In Afghanistan, such aerial attacks, not always by drones, of course, have
created a ticklish dilemma for the Karzai government as it pretends to be a
real government, rather than the U.S. puppet it actually is. Official
protests have become increasingly vociferous, though I have seen no
evidence that the U.S. forces intend to change their operations in
response.

What an awesome power the president and, with his authorization, his
subordinate officers possess: they can kill people at will, including those
persons’ wives and children, with no risk whatever of receiving return fire
or other retribution. Surely this is the long-sought culmination of the
Republican’s quest to establish "law and order."

What leads me to remark on this matter, however, is not its technological
nuts and bolts or its connection with master-puppet relations in southwest
Asia, but rather the complete insouciance with which the American public
greets reports of deaths by drone. I do not exaggerate if I say that the
general reaction is "ho-hum." Well, the average American says, that
disposes nicely of another "bad guy." The gratuitous murder of the bad
guy’s family members, neighbors, and other innocent persons in the vicinity
appears to create no blip on the average American’s moral radar screen.
Perhaps Americans do not consider Yemenis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis to be
real human beings whose right to life we are obliged to respect?

Is death by drone simply another occasion when the president, having labeled
a set of actions as a "war," believes and acts as though he has carte
blanche to dish out death and destruction willy nilly?

Of course, reports of drone attacks usually refer to militants, Taliban
forces, or al Qaeda members. To this information, we might well respond:
yeah, who says? If we are content to assume that U.S. intelligence agents,
who nearly always get their information from collaborators in the target
territories, really know whom they are targeting, then we are certainly
easily satisfied. One does not have to make an extensive survey of U.S.
government claims about Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other places in
southwest Asia over the past seven years to see that for the most part the
U.S. commanders, from the Commander in Chief on down to the sweatiest
noncom on patrol, are either more or less clueless or the biggest liars on
the planet. I do not rule out that they are both.

The upshot is that the people who cooperate in getting to the point at which
someone pushes the button to send the Hellfire toward its selected target
may in fact not know for sure whom they are about the kill, or how many
others will be killed along with this ostensible "enemy" or who those
others are.

Without launching into a massive  geopolitical inquiry, we might well pause
from time to time to ask, What are U.S. forces doing in Afghanistan and
Pakistan anyhow? Surely they are not there to capture or kill the persons
responsible for the crimes of 9/11, because they have already proved beyond
all doubt that they are incapable of doing so (as Osama bin Laden’s videos
periodically remind us). They are, however, all too capable of diverting
their energies from that objective toward unrelated goals, such as
attacking and occupying Iraq.

We Americans find ourselves, then, observing with extreme moral
disengagement as the president and his subordinates murder persons whose
identities remain uncertain along with assorted others whose only crime is
being in the same area as the targeted individuals – after all, the
Hellfire, which makes a very big blast, can scarcely be described as a
surgically precise killing instrument.

Moreover, the president’s use of this remote-control-execution device
apparently has no geographical limits, because, as he assures us, the "war
on terror" has none. Today, a dirt road in Waziristan; tomorrow, the Santa
Monica Freeway.  It will be interesting to see, when drone attacks are
carried out in this country, whether the American public gives a damn.


-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...

> So, the President May Kill Anybody He Pleases, Right?

Too damned right ! USA! USA! USA! Don't need no permission slip from anyone
!


> http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs88.html
:
> What an awesome power the president and, with his authorization, his
> subordinate officers possess: they can kill people at will, including
those
> persons' wives and children, with no risk whatever of receiving return
fire
> or other retribution. Surely this is the long-sought culmination of the
> Republican's quest to establish "law and order."
>
> What leads me to remark on this matter, however, is not its technological
> nuts and bolts or its connection with master-puppet relations in southwest
> Asia, but rather the complete insouciance with which the American public
> greets reports of deaths by drone. I do not exaggerate if I say that the
> general reaction is "ho-hum." Well, the average American says, that
> disposes nicely of another "bad guy." The gratuitous murder of the bad
> guy's family members, neighbors, and other innocent persons in the
vicinity
> appears to create no blip on the average American's moral radar screen.
> Perhaps Americans do not consider Yemenis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis to be
> real human beings whose right to life we are obliged to respect?

That's the sickening part of it really, and it's not just confined to
Americans. Many in the west simply shrug their shoulders and don't give a
flying fuck for the death, destruction and murder Bush's wars entail. As
long as it's not their own kind being killed in cold blood. As long as
someone's tagged a 'terrorist' label on them they're happy and turn a blind
eye to the plight of those in far off lands. Who cares when children and
babies are slaughtered ? Call them terrorists, forget about waht America
does. "Gratuitous murder" ? More like outright evil.

When they do the same to us it's a different matter. Their ersatz drones
hitting the WTC didn't go down too well did they ? The US is really doing no
different around the world. Less spectacular and fewer killed in each
murder, but the deaths add up well beyond what 9-11 delivered in terms of
innocents slaughtered.

There's was the worst terrorist atrocity ever witnessed. Ours given in
return is, who gives a fuck ?

On Sep 16, 10:22 am, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote:
> "Robin T Cox"  wrote ...
>
> > So, the President May Kill Anybody He Pleases, Right?
>
> Too damned right ! USA! USA! USA! Don't need no permission slip from anyone
> !
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs88.html
> :
> > What an awesome power the president and, with his authorization, his
> > subordinate officers possess: they can kill people at will, including
> those
> > persons' wives and children, with no risk whatever of receiving return
> fire
> > or other retribution. Surely this is the long-sought culmination of the
> > Republican's quest to establish "law and order."
>
> > What leads me to remark on this matter, however, is not its technological
> > nuts and bolts or its connection with master-puppet relations in southwest
> > Asia, but rather the complete insouciance with which the American public
> > greets reports of deaths by drone. I do not exaggerate if I say that the
> > general reaction is "ho-hum." Well, the average American says, that
> > disposes nicely of another "bad guy." The gratuitous murder of the bad
> > guy's family members, neighbors, and other innocent persons in the
> vicinity
> > appears to create no blip on the average American's moral radar screen.
> > Perhaps Americans do not consider Yemenis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis to be
> > real human beings whose right to life we are obliged to respect?
>
> That's the sickening part of it really, and it's not just confined to
> Americans. Many in the west simply shrug their shoulders and don't give a
> flying fuck for the death, destruction and murder Bush's wars entail. As
> long as it's not their own kind being killed in cold blood. As long as
> someone's tagged a 'terrorist' label on them they're happy and turn a blind
> eye to the plight of those in far off lands. Who cares when children and
> babies are slaughtered ? Call them terrorists, forget about waht America
> does. "Gratuitous murder" ? More like outright evil.
>
> When they do the same to us it's a different matter. Their ersatz drones
> hitting the WTC didn't go down too well did they ? The US is really doing no
> different around the world. Less spectacular and fewer killed in each
> murder, but the deaths add up well beyond what 9-11 delivered in terms of
> innocents slaughtered.
>
> There's was the worst terrorist atrocity ever witnessed. Ours given in
> return is, who gives a fuck ?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20782.htm

headline:

An Open Letter to Christian Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

America is Now Rome

By Stan Goff

16/09/08 "Counterpunch" --  On February 1, 1996, I retired from the
United States Army. I had served in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in
Vietnam as an infantryman, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 4th
Infantry Division, 2nd Ranger Battalion, the Jungle Operations
Training Center, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta,
the United States Military Academy at West Point, 1st Ranger
Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, 75th Ranger Regiment, and finally
3rd Special Forces Group. I worked all over "hot spots" in Latin
America during the 80s and early 90s. I participated in Grenada and
Somalia; and I was the team sergeant for a Special Forces A-Detachment
during the 1994 invasion of Haiti. In all that time, I was one of
those atheists in the foxholes they say don't exist. I could never
have known that I'd find the faith to follow Christ and be baptized on
Easter of my 56th year. But I did, even when I'd never grasped for
spiritual reassurance as I slogged through the Central Highlands of
Vietnam, leapt from airplanes into the night, or had helicopters shot
out from under me. I've been taking up residence close to death for a
long time. My faith isn't about jumping over death. It's about
reconciling with God, who Jesus Christ showed us is Love.

When I was baptized I continued to carry my history; but one identity
was sloughed off in the water and a new one born out of it. I write
this open letter to troops, brothers and sisters -- of all branches --
who profess the faith of Christ. I write you to ask that you remember
your baptism, because at that baptism you declared your renunciation
of evil. * The big preposition Note the preposition. I didn't say
faith in Christ, I said faith of Christ. Christian is a diminutive
term; it means "little Christ." To be a Christian is not to merely
have faith in Christ. That's too easy, and Jesus of Nazareth was not
about easy. To be Christian is to aspire to have the faith of Christ.
Christ's call is not to go along with the program, say the magic
words, then be rescued from death. Christ did not merely command
belief. Christ commands you to follow him. That command does not wait
until death for it to become effective in your life. "Love your
enemy." This is not an etching at some altar that you visit; it is
your path laid before you by the footsteps of Christ in this world.
This is an action religion, not an abracadrabra religion. Christ tells
us to take up the cross. That means be willing to risk all, to suffer
all when suffering can heal the brokenness in the world. The
brokenness of 1st Century Palestine was not altogether different from
the brokenness of the world now. Jesus' ministry was conducted in the
teeth of a Roman military occupation. Like Nuri al Malaki's
"government," the Palestinian Jewish upper-class then lived in an
uncomfortable collaboration with that occupation. There were also
Jewish insurgents who fought the Roman occupation, who fought among
themselves, and who attacked collaborating Jewish sects as well. One
particular nationalist party that emerged prior to the revolt with
Rome was known as the Zealots. You may recall that Jesus had such folk
among his small band of disciples. "And when day came, he called his
disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles:
Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and
John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James
son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot..." (Luke
6:13-15)

We can't beat around the bush about this comparison. It's clear.

We Romans

America is now Rome. You are Rome's army of occupation. To the Roman
soldier, when Jesus passed down the dusty byways of his occupied land,
he appeared no more or less than a random Iraqi or Afghan appears to
you. What do you look like to them? Jesus himself looked at the Jewish
resistance to Roman occupation, then looked at the corpses rotting on
crosses along the roads as Roman examples to the Palestinian Jew,; and
he chose a new way. His way was neither passivity, nor counter-
violence, but non-violent resistance, just like Mahatma Gandhi and Dr.
Martin Luther King, who both cited Jesus' ministry in their own
prophetic missions. Jesus looked at the violence-counterviolence
cycle, and determined that each person in that system was redeemable
as an individual - each a child of God, each beloved of God. Jewish,
Roman, Samaritan, male, female... no matter. He also looked at how the
system itself -- operating with a self-reinforcing dynamic that
transcends the individual -- led people into the cycles of accusation
and violence; and he proposed to undermine that system with this
radical doctrine of spiritual equality, a redemption open to all
through grace, and a redemption never imposed at the point of a
sword... or under threat of a bomb. In the original story, written in
Greek, Jesus says, "I am not of this world." At least that's how many
interpretations go. But the original Greek word kosmos means world,
flesh, or system, depending on context. "I am not of this system." Not
simply the system of Roman occupation, but the system of violence-
counterviolence... all systems of domination, because domination
breeds the cycle of violence-counterviolence.

Pretensions of the devil

Scripture has been interpreted to suit plenty that is the very evil
you renounced at your baptism. The subjugation of women. Slavery. War.
Even the white supremacist sects have quoted Scripture. But in order
to do so, literalism and decontextualizaton have been used to distort
the essence and spirit of the Scriptures for the most impure of
motives. In America, we hear much about a few references to sex in the
Bible, but little about the many references to poverty, and less about
Jesus' provocations on peace. When Jesus says his way will break the
dominance of one generation over another within the family, between
slave and master, between male and female, he does not confine this
vision to heaven - where the upside-down "kingdom" without oppression
lives in the dimension of Spirit. He says "on earth as it is in
heaven." Jesus was an earthy guy. He bathed in rivers, shat on the
ground, and broke bread with fishmongers, tax-collectors, outcasts,
prostitutes, Zealots... and he showed mercy to the child of a Roman
soldier.

Even on the cross, in his final breaths as the Romans' victim, he
cries out to God on behalf of those who kill him: "When they came to
the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with
the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. Then Jesus said,
'Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are
doing.'" (Luke 23:33-34) What do you think that means? Certainly the
Roman soldiers (soldiers like you) knew they were participating in a
crucifixion. The Roman troops had done this many times.

What they did not understand was how their system led them to do this.
In Matthew 27:54, it was a Centurion who heard these words -- "forgive
them" -- and experienced an earthquake, saying, "Truly, this is the
Son of God." (Do you see how the symbolic truth here is more powerful
than the literal seismology?) Forgiveness unmasks Satan, who is not
the boogyman of popular culture, but the spirit in the culture -- some
would call it a zeitgeist -- that acts as God's jealous pretender,
that promotes Self as God, that plays the accuser to stir up the mob
(weapons of mass destruction?), that sets up idols... so that we will
"know not what we do," so we will not know who and whose we are. You
can hear the voice of Satan in every instance of boasting, humiliation
of another, profaning of what we know to be sacred (like God's
Creation), every thought and word of aggression or revenge, every put-
down of other people (all beloved of God). Where you are, you can see
how the state of war and occupation -- putting you at odds with an
occupied population that does not want to be occupied -- amplifies and
focuses the malevolent spirit. Now ask yourself why? Why do troops run
down civilians with vehicles to avoid slowing down? Why do troops
throw bottles and cans at pedestrians to entertain themselves? Why did
the massacres like Haditha occur? Why did the utter destruction of
Fallujah happen? Why are wedding parties bombed by US aircraft? Why
did a whole squad participate in the premeditated half-hour-long rape
and murder of a screaming 14-year-old girl? Why is it that approaching
an invader's roadblock can carry death sentence for a whole family?
Why can children can be woken from their beds by soldiers kicking down
the house doors? Why are thousands are held imprisoned without casue?
Why are Iraqi and Afghan elders obliged to obey 20-year-old invaders
who can't even speak their language? Why do your peers (perhaps even
you) refer to all Iraqis or Afghans with epithets? Why do your peers
laugh when they retell stories of their own cruelties and their
humiliations of the people whose nations they have invaded? Why are
you there? What is the spirit in our culture that spins out clever
excuses for these evils? It is that same spirit that you renounced at
your baptism, which I call on you to remember now. Remember your
baptism, where you renounced Satan.

Making and unmaking enemies ... (cont)

"chatnoir"  wrote ....

[snip]

Now ask yourself why? Why do troops run
down civilians with vehicles to avoid slowing down? Why do troops
throw bottles and cans at pedestrians to entertain themselves? Why did
the massacres like Haditha occur? Why did the utter destruction of
Fallujah happen? Why are wedding parties bombed by US aircraft? Why
did a whole squad participate in the premeditated half-hour-long rape
and murder of a screaming 14-year-old girl? Why is it that approaching
an invader's roadblock can carry death sentence for a whole family?
Why can children can be woken from their beds by soldiers kicking down
the house doors? Why are thousands are held imprisoned without casue?
Why are Iraqi and Afghan elders obliged to obey 20-year-old invaders
who can't even speak their language? Why do your peers (perhaps even
you) refer to all Iraqis or Afghans with epithets? Why do your peers
laugh when they retell stories of their own cruelties and their
humiliations of the people whose nations they have invaded? Why are
you there? What is the spirit in our culture that spins out clever
excuses for these evils? It is that same spirit that you renounced at
your baptism, which I call on you to remember now. Remember your
baptism, where you renounced Satan.

=====

Something that anyone with any morality, be they Christian, other, even
atheist should be asking themselves. Whether evil is Satan or something
else, there is certainly plenty of it being enacted in the way human beings
are treated in this conflict and how they have been in others.

Terrible things can be done in the heat of the moment, but these are
terrible things which are done systemically and repeatedly.

I am at a loss to imagine how those who believe there is some deity they
will ultimately be answerable to will justify what they've done and what
they've allowed to happen. That goes for those directly responsible for such
evil, those who cheer it along, and those who choose to turn a blind eye to
it.

We may not be in a position to change what happens directly, but that is no
reason not to raise our voices in criticism of what does happen, the evil
that is done, and, above all, it is about what is in our hearts. How anyone
can remain silent in the circumstances escapes me.

In message 
, 
chatnoir  writes
>http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20782.htm
>
>headline:
>
>An Open Letter to Christian Troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
>
>America is Now Rome
>
>By Stan Goff
>
>16/09/08 "Counterpunch" --  On February 1, 1996, I retired from the
>United States Army. I had served in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in
>Vietnam as an infantryman, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 4th
>Infantry Division, 2nd Ranger Battalion, the Jungle Operations
>Training Center, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta,
>the United States Military Academy at West Point, 1st Ranger
>Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group, 75th Ranger Regiment, and finally
>3rd Special Forces Group. I worked all over "hot spots" in Latin
>America during the 80s and early 90s. I participated in Grenada and
>Somalia; and I was the team sergeant for a Special Forces A-Detachment
>during the 1994 invasion of Haiti.


So Jesse, it looks like REAL soldiers don't agree with you

SO Jesse what units did you serve in during your 10-14 years in the US 
Marines?

Now watch Jesse equivocate and not answer or come back with a childish 
homophobic insult.



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "chatnoir"  wrote ....
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Now ask yourself why? Why do troops run
> down civilians with vehicles to avoid slowing down? Why do troops
> throw bottles and cans at pedestrians to entertain themselves? Why did
> the massacres like Haditha occur? Why did the utter destruction of
> Fallujah happen? Why are wedding parties bombed by US aircraft? Why
> did a whole squad participate in the premeditated half-hour-long rape
> and murder of a screaming 14-year-old girl? Why is it that approaching
> an invader's roadblock can carry death sentence for a whole family?
> Why can children can be woken from their beds by soldiers kicking down
> the house doors? Why are thousands are held imprisoned without casue?
> Why are Iraqi and Afghan elders obliged to obey 20-year-old invaders
> who can't even speak their language? Why do your peers (perhaps even
> you) refer to all Iraqis or Afghans with epithets? Why do your peers
> laugh when they retell stories of their own cruelties and their
> humiliations of the people whose nations they have invaded? Why are
> you there? What is the spirit in our culture that spins out clever
> excuses for these evils? It is that same spirit that you renounced at
> your baptism, which I call on you to remember now. Remember your
> baptism, where you renounced Satan.
> 
> =====
> 
> Something that anyone with any morality, be they Christian, other, even
> atheist should be asking themselves. Whether evil is Satan or something
> else, there is certainly plenty of it being enacted in the way human beings
> are treated in this conflict and how they have been in others.
> 
> Terrible things can be done in the heat of the moment, but these are
> terrible things which are done systemically and repeatedly.
> 
> I am at a loss to imagine how those who believe there is some deity they
> will ultimately be answerable to will justify what they've done and what
> they've allowed to happen. That goes for those directly responsible for such
> evil, those who cheer it along, and those who choose to turn a blind eye to
> it.
> 
> We may not be in a position to change what happens directly, but that is no
> reason not to raise our voices in criticism of what does happen, the evil
> that is done, and, above all, it is about what is in our hearts. How anyone
> can remain silent in the circumstances escapes me.

Your silence is fairly deafening when muslims have blown up their latest 
victims in random homicide attacks - Attacks that have, I might add, 
been going on well before 9/11.
Why is that ?

You actually are getting close to some pretty good points here, some of 
what you say I am tempted to say "well said" .... But there is something 
missing here, and that something is your apparent inability to assign 
any bad motives to anything muslims do.

To you it seems that anything that they do is some payback ,some 
blowback, something we have brought upon ourselves and therefore deserve 
- And indeed, some things we do deserve.

So the muslims are innocents in general, only defending themselves, 
their countries and their honor from subjugation and attack - And 
retaliating in any way they can.
Is that a fair summary of your thought process here ?

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > "chatnoir"  wrote ....
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Now ask yourself why? Why do troops run
> > down civilians with vehicles to avoid slowing down? Why do troops
> > throw bottles and cans at pedestrians to entertain themselves? Why did
> > the massacres like Haditha occur? Why did the utter destruction of
> > Fallujah happen? Why are wedding parties bombed by US aircraft? Why
> > did a whole squad participate in the premeditated half-hour-long rape
> > and murder of a screaming 14-year-old girl? Why is it that approaching
> > an invader's roadblock can carry death sentence for a whole family?
> > Why can children can be woken from their beds by soldiers kicking down
> > the house doors? Why are thousands are held imprisoned without casue?
> > Why are Iraqi and Afghan elders obliged to obey 20-year-old invaders
> > who can't even speak their language? Why do your peers (perhaps even
> > you) refer to all Iraqis or Afghans with epithets? Why do your peers
> > laugh when they retell stories of their own cruelties and their
> > humiliations of the people whose nations they have invaded? Why are
> > you there? What is the spirit in our culture that spins out clever
> > excuses for these evils? It is that same spirit that you renounced at
> > your baptism, which I call on you to remember now. Remember your
> > baptism, where you renounced Satan.
> >
> > =====
> >
> > Something that anyone with any morality, be they Christian, other, even
> > atheist should be asking themselves. Whether evil is Satan or something
> > else, there is certainly plenty of it being enacted in the way human
beings
> > are treated in this conflict and how they have been in others.
> >
> > Terrible things can be done in the heat of the moment, but these are
> > terrible things which are done systemically and repeatedly.
> >
> > I am at a loss to imagine how those who believe there is some deity they
> > will ultimately be answerable to will justify what they've done and what
> > they've allowed to happen. That goes for those directly responsible for
such
> > evil, those who cheer it along, and those who choose to turn a blind eye
to
> > it.
> >
> > We may not be in a position to change what happens directly, but that is
no
> > reason not to raise our voices in criticism of what does happen, the
evil
> > that is done, and, above all, it is about what is in our hearts. How
anyone
> > can remain silent in the circumstances escapes me.
>
> Your silence is fairly deafening when muslims have blown up their latest
> victims in random homicide attacks - Attacks that have, I might add,
> been going on well before 9/11.
> Why is that ?
>
> You actually are getting close to some pretty good points here, some of
> what you say I am tempted to say "well said" .... But there is something
> missing here, and that something is your apparent inability to assign
> any bad motives to anything muslims do.
>
> To you it seems that anything that they do is some payback ,some
> blowback, something we have brought upon ourselves and therefore deserve
> - And indeed, some things we do deserve.
>
> So the muslims are innocents in general, only defending themselves,
> their countries and their honor from subjugation and attack - And
> retaliating in any way they can.
> Is that a fair summary of your thought process here ?

Far better than you've managed before.

1) "muslims are innocents in general" - That is absolutely correct.

2) "So the muslims are ... only defending themselves, their countries and
their honor from subjugation and attack " - Most Muslims are not involved in
any of these US started wars. There are those defending as you say. There
are those who have come to join them and aid them in this ( their coalitions
of the willing ). There are also those who are engaged in sectarian and
other power struggles of their own since the US plunged their countries into
chaos and removed the stabilising controls and influences.

3) "anything that they do is some payback ,some blowback, something we have
brought upon ourselves" - Not anything, no. The insurgency and militancy
against occupation, yes. The retaliation against US-led slaughter, yes. The
reaction to interference in their destinies, yes.

4) "Your silence is fairly deafening when muslims have blown up their latest
victims in random homicide attacks" - I have made my views clear on that
over many years; I condemn all those who kill innocent people. But to which
"random homicide attacks" do you refer ? Attacks upon police stations,
checkpoints and infrastructure are military in nature not random at all.
I've condemned their collateral in the past but it's no worse than the US's
collateral and in their circumstances of not being a professional armed
military to be expected. Those aiding and abetting the occupiers and puppet
governments are not innocents but have made themselves collaborators,
traitors and legitimate targets.

5) "But there is something missing here ... your apparent inability to
assign any bad motives to anything muslims do" - Some Muslims have bad
motives and I've never denied that. Others have very good motives. Most
Muslims are standing on the sidelines not participating or motivated into
anything. There are criminal Muslims just as there are criminal Christians,
criminal Jews and criminals of all faiths and of none who have no legitimate
justification in my opinion for what they do.

6) The question you didn't ask - "Why do you seem to rail at the US but not
so at the Muslims" - Because I judge both on how I would respond in the same
situation, under the same provocations. Putting aside why it happened, 9-11
was a terrible event and retaliation for that was to be expected.
Unfortunately the US invaded two countries to subjugate peoples who had
nothing to do with it. Those peoples quite reasonable rejected that and took
up arms as best they could - exactly as I would in the same circumstances,
exactly as you would, exactly as anyone who wasn't a traitor to their own
country and fellow man would.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>> "chatnoir"  wrote ....
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Now ask yourself why? Why do troops run
>>> down civilians with vehicles to avoid slowing down? Why do troops
>>> throw bottles and cans at pedestrians to entertain themselves? Why did
>>> the massacres like Haditha occur? Why did the utter destruction of
>>> Fallujah happen? Why are wedding parties bombed by US aircraft? Why
>>> did a whole squad participate in the premeditated half-hour-long rape
>>> and murder of a screaming 14-year-old girl? Why is it that approaching
>>> an invader's roadblock can carry death sentence for a whole family?
>>> Why can children can be woken from their beds by soldiers kicking down
>>> the house doors? Why are thousands are held imprisoned without casue?
>>> Why are Iraqi and Afghan elders obliged to obey 20-year-old invaders
>>> who can't even speak their language? Why do your peers (perhaps even
>>> you) refer to all Iraqis or Afghans with epithets? Why do your peers
>>> laugh when they retell stories of their own cruelties and their
>>> humiliations of the people whose nations they have invaded? Why are
>>> you there? What is the spirit in our culture that spins out clever
>>> excuses for these evils? It is that same spirit that you renounced at
>>> your baptism, which I call on you to remember now. Remember your
>>> baptism, where you renounced Satan.
>>>
>>> =====
>>>
>>> Something that anyone with any morality, be they Christian, other, even
>>> atheist should be asking themselves. Whether evil is Satan or something
>>> else, there is certainly plenty of it being enacted in the way human
> beings
>>> are treated in this conflict and how they have been in others.
>>>
>>> Terrible things can be done in the heat of the moment, but these are
>>> terrible things which are done systemically and repeatedly.
>>>
>>> I am at a loss to imagine how those who believe there is some deity they
>>> will ultimately be answerable to will justify what they've done and what
>>> they've allowed to happen. That goes for those directly responsible for
> such
>>> evil, those who cheer it along, and those who choose to turn a blind eye
> to
>>> it.
>>>
>>> We may not be in a position to change what happens directly, but that is
> no
>>> reason not to raise our voices in criticism of what does happen, the
> evil
>>> that is done, and, above all, it is about what is in our hearts. How
> anyone
>>> can remain silent in the circumstances escapes me.
>> Your silence is fairly deafening when muslims have blown up their latest
>> victims in random homicide attacks - Attacks that have, I might add,
>> been going on well before 9/11.
>> Why is that ?
>>
>> You actually are getting close to some pretty good points here, some of
>> what you say I am tempted to say "well said" .... But there is something
>> missing here, and that something is your apparent inability to assign
>> any bad motives to anything muslims do.
>>
>> To you it seems that anything that they do is some payback ,some
>> blowback, something we have brought upon ourselves and therefore deserve
>> - And indeed, some things we do deserve.
>>
>> So the muslims are innocents in general, only defending themselves,
>> their countries and their honor from subjugation and attack - And
>> retaliating in any way they can.
>> Is that a fair summary of your thought process here ?
> 
> Far better than you've managed before.
> 
> 1) "muslims are innocents in general" - That is absolutely correct.

So this would explain the [preposterous] attitude of you and your 
followers here that every muslim who is killed is either 1:a guest at an 
innocent wedding party, or 2:an innocent baby.
You start out assuming that every muslim that is killed in actions like 
the ones detailed
in Larrys "Pakistan mows down another 60 or more in Bajaur" is 
completely innocent, and you need it proved to your absolute 
satisfaction that such is not the case - Since it can and will never be 
proved to your absolute satisfaction, you conclude that yet another 
group of innocent folks have been brutally murdered.


> 2) "So the muslims are ... only defending themselves, their countries and
> their honor from subjugation and attack " - Most Muslims are not involved in
> any of these US started wars. There are those defending as you say.

I wasn't saying anything, I was trying to summarize your attitude, as I 
see it.

> There
> are those who have come to join them and aid them in this ( their coalitions
> of the willing ). There are also those who are engaged in sectarian and
> other power struggles of their own since the US plunged their countries into
> chaos and removed the stabilising controls and influences.

So would you regard these folks as legitimate targets for us ?

> 3) "anything that they do is some payback ,some blowback, something we have
> brought upon ourselves" - Not anything, no. The insurgency and militancy
> against occupation, yes. The retaliation against US-led slaughter, yes. The
> reaction to interference in their destinies, yes.

Ok, you've rattled off 3 yeses in quick succession ... How about a no, 
since you have said that not everything that they do is justifiable ?

> 4) "Your silence is fairly deafening when muslims have blown up their latest
> victims in random homicide attacks" - I have made my views clear on that
> over many years; I condemn all those who kill innocent people. But to which
> "random homicide attacks" do you refer ? Attacks upon police stations,
> checkpoints and infrastructure are military in nature not random at all.
> I've condemned their collateral in the past but it's no worse than the US's
> collateral and in their circumstances of not being a professional armed
> military to be expected. Those aiding and abetting the occupiers and puppet
> governments are not innocents but have made themselves collaborators,
> traitors and legitimate targets.

Not sure on stats, it would be very instructive to find the percentage 
of lethal attacks that are against military/political/law enforcement 
targets, which I of course also agree are legit, vs those that are aimed 
at fruit markets, buses and even funeral processions, which are sheer 
terror.
I would have to believe that the latter outweighs the former by a 
healthy margin.

For the record, and of course I do not read your every post, I have not 
once seen you specifically condemn a muslim homicide/suicide bombing.
I have seen you many time drift off into generalities as above "I 
condemn all senseless violence by anyone" ect, but I really doubt if you 
could point me to a post of yours, which you started, calling out any 
muslims for their insane actions.

> 
> 5) "But there is something missing here ... your apparent inability to
> assign any bad motives to anything muslims do" - Some Muslims have bad
> motives and I've never denied that. Others have very good motives. Most
> Muslims are standing on the sidelines not participating or motivated into
> anything. There are criminal Muslims just as there are criminal Christians,
> criminal Jews and criminals of all faiths and of none who have no legitimate
> justification in my opinion for what they do.

It is not Christians who are calling for, and heeding on a mass scale, 
calls for bloody religious jihads, now is it ?
Christians are largely pacifist in nature and outlook, muslims anything 
but pacifist. They are aggressive and conquest minded and need to be 
countered, and your constant attempts to equate the two fall far short 
of reality.
They have succeeded in mass invasions of western homelands on an 
unprecedented scale, and are not going to be content with adapting and 
bowing to the host, as a cursory glance at just about any major western 
city will tell.
We see them imposing themselves on you, so evident in the UK, where they 
have already caused carnage and spilled blood and doubtless have plans 
for more. The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Australia and 
the USA, to name but a few - They are building foreign nations within 
nations and, due to their clannish nature and aggressive instincts, a 
power struggle will form in any area they have invaded in force.
Due to the politically correct nature of the "host" governments which 
protects them and even encourages them, they have been able to thrive so 
far, but it won't always be this way. It is in fact a house built on 
quicksand, and I very much look forward to some real backlash against 
these foreign invaders, who have no more business being in your land or 
mine than a giraffe belongs in Poland.
That is the crux to me, I really could not care any less what they do in 
their own lands, insofar as it doesn't affect me or the true interest of 
my nation.
> 
> 6) The question you didn't ask - "Why do you seem to rail at the US but not
> so at the Muslims" - Because I judge both on how I would respond in the same
> situation, under the same provocations. Putting aside why it happened, 9-11
> was a terrible event and retaliation for that was to be expected.
> Unfortunately the US invaded two countries to subjugate peoples who had
> nothing to do with it. Those peoples quite reasonable rejected that and took
> up arms as best they could - exactly as I would in the same circumstances,
> exactly as you would, exactly as anyone who wasn't a traitor to their own
> country and fellow man would.

Afghanistan had long become a safe haven and spawning ground for 
terrorists, was indeed sheltering the alleged mastermind of 9/11 and 
needed to be reduced, which it has been.
Iraq, granted, is another matter, and not so easily justified.

"Jesse"  wrote ...

[snip]

> >> So the muslims are innocents in general, only defending themselves,
> >> their countries and their honor from subjugation and attack - And
> >> retaliating in any way they can.
> >> Is that a fair summary of your thought process here ?
> >
> > Far better than you've managed before.
> >
> > 1) "muslims are innocents in general" - That is absolutely correct.
>
> So this would explain the [preposterous] attitude of you and your
> followers here that every muslim who is killed is either 1:a guest at an
> innocent wedding party, or 2:an innocent baby.
> You start out assuming that every muslim that is killed in actions like
> the ones detailed
> in Larrys "Pakistan mows down another 60 or more in Bajaur" is
> completely innocent, and you need it proved to your absolute
> satisfaction that such is not the case - Since it can and will never be
> proved to your absolute satisfaction, you conclude that yet another
> group of innocent folks have been brutally murdered.

"Innocent until proven guilty".


> > 2) "So the muslims are ... only defending themselves, their countries
and
> > their honor from subjugation and attack " - Most Muslims are not
involved in
> > any of these US started wars. There are those defending as you say.
>
> I wasn't saying anything, I was trying to summarize your attitude, as I
> see it.
>
> > There
> > are those who have come to join them and aid them in this ( their
coalitions
> > of the willing ). There are also those who are engaged in sectarian and
> > other power struggles of their own since the US plunged their countries
into
> > chaos and removed the stabilising controls and influences.
>
> So would you regard these folks as legitimate targets for us ?

An interesting question. If I punch someone in the face for no good reason,
they punch me back; can I then claim they are legitimate targets for a
really good kicking ?


> > 3) "anything that they do is some payback ,some blowback, something we
have
> > brought upon ourselves" - Not anything, no. The insurgency and militancy
> > against occupation, yes. The retaliation against US-led slaughter, yes.
The
> > reaction to interference in their destinies, yes.
>
> Ok, you've rattled off 3 yeses in quick succession ... How about a no,
> since you have said that not everything that they do is justifiable ?

There's a no in there.

Perhaps you meant name something a Muslim does which is not of the
aforementioned cause ? Okay then - Stealing cars. That's not payback,
blowback nor something we've brought on ourselves.


> > 4) "Your silence is fairly deafening when muslims have blown up their
latest
> > victims in random homicide attacks" - I have made my views clear on that
> > over many years; I condemn all those who kill innocent people. But to
which
> > "random homicide attacks" do you refer ? Attacks upon police stations,
> > checkpoints and infrastructure are military in nature not random at all.
> > I've condemned their collateral in the past but it's no worse than the
US's
> > collateral and in their circumstances of not being a professional armed
> > military to be expected. Those aiding and abetting the occupiers and
puppet
> > governments are not innocents but have made themselves collaborators,
> > traitors and legitimate targets.
>
> Not sure on stats, it would be very instructive to find the percentage
> of lethal attacks that are against military/political/law enforcement
> targets, which I of course also agree are legit, vs those that are aimed
> at fruit markets, buses and even funeral processions, which are sheer
> terror.
> I would have to believe that the latter outweighs the former by a
> healthy margin.

You believe what you want.


> For the record, and of course I do not read your every post, I have not
> once seen you specifically condemn a muslim homicide/suicide bombing.
> I have seen you many time drift off into generalities as above "I
> condemn all senseless violence by anyone" ect, but I really doubt if you
> could point me to a post of yours, which you started, calling out any
> muslims for their insane actions.

It's not my problem you've missed what I write. It's all a matter of public
record.


> > 5) "But there is something missing here ... your apparent inability to
> > assign any bad motives to anything muslims do" - Some Muslims have bad
> > motives and I've never denied that. Others have very good motives. Most
> > Muslims are standing on the sidelines not participating or motivated
into
> > anything. There are criminal Muslims just as there are criminal
Christians,
> > criminal Jews and criminals of all faiths and of none who have no
legitimate
> > justification in my opinion for what they do.
>
> It is not Christians who are calling for, and heeding on a mass scale,
> calls for bloody religious jihads, now is it ?

Nor Mulsims either.


> Christians are largely pacifist in nature and outlook, muslims anything
> but pacifist.

Oh well, seems you're back to your propagandising based on bigotry and
prejudice ...


> They are aggressive and conquest minded and need to be
> countered, and your constant attempts to equate the two fall far short
> of reality.

Funnily enough it's that great Christian nation the US of A which has
inveded two countries. The Muslims have invaded none in recent decades.


> They have succeeded in mass invasions of western homelands on an
> unprecedented scale, and are not going to be content with adapting and
> bowing to the host, as a cursory glance at just about any major western
> city will tell.
> We see them imposing themselves on you, so evident in the UK, where they
> have already caused carnage and spilled blood and doubtless have plans
> for more. The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Australia and
> the USA, to name but a few - They are building foreign nations within
> nations and, due to their clannish nature and aggressive instincts, a
> power struggle will form in any area they have invaded in force.
> Due to the politically correct nature of the "host" governments which
> protects them and even encourages them, they have been able to thrive so
> far, but it won't always be this way. It is in fact a house built on
> quicksand, and I very much look forward to some real backlash against
> these foreign invaders, who have no more business being in your land or
> mine than a giraffe belongs in Poland.
> That is the crux to me, I really could not care any less what they do in
> their own lands, insofar as it doesn't affect me or the true interest of
> my nation.

Whatever. Your bigoted, prejudiced and racist opinions are yours to have.
They're the same as those terrorists who attack the US hold. You're no
different to each other.


> > 6) The question you didn't ask - "Why do you seem to rail at the US but
not
> > so at the Muslims" - Because I judge both on how I would respond in the
same
> > situation, under the same provocations. Putting aside why it happened,
9-11
> > was a terrible event and retaliation for that was to be expected.
> > Unfortunately the US invaded two countries to subjugate peoples who had
> > nothing to do with it. Those peoples quite reasonable rejected that and
took
> > up arms as best they could - exactly as I would in the same
circumstances,
> > exactly as you would, exactly as anyone who wasn't a traitor to their
own
> > country and fellow man would.
>
> Afghanistan had long become a safe haven and spawning ground for
> terrorists, was indeed sheltering the alleged mastermind of 9/11 and
> needed to be reduced, which it has been.

No surprise you're applauding collective punishment. You're of the same
mindeset as those who carried out 9-11. There really isn't any difference
between yourself and the terrorists.


> Iraq, granted, is another matter, and not so easily justified.

Good to hear you say so.