I cannot give you an exmple off the top of my head. You may use that to discount my position if you’d like. But I can give you some instances of the type of attitude I was alluding to.
How about the geniuses from A.N.S.W.E.R. who carried the protesdt sign saying that “We support our troops that kill their officers.” Or the other group of geniuses who tried to prevent a supply ship that was heading for the middle east from leaving the Port of Oakland. When confronted by TV camera people in both these groups profess to “support the troops”. I’ guess I’ll have to leave out the rantings of Columbia professor Nicholas De Genova who called for a million Mogudishus in Iraq and those of fake professor, fake American Indian, and fake human being Ward Churchill because I don’t think either of them ever professed to support the troops.
PLease note: I realize that this is NOT a direct reponse to your question.
Congratulations, you’ve just made Id Software morally responsible for the Columbine massacre. Simillarly, J.D. Salinger is now to blame for the death of John Lennon, Oliver Stone is to blame for multiple murders, and Judas Priest must accept moral responsibility for those two dumbass kids who stuck shotguns in their faces.
Your concept of “blame”/moral responsibility is rhetorically and intellectually bankrupt. Congratulations, you are now Exhibit A in why so many otherwise decent and intelligent people support the truly reprehensible people in responsible everything you profess to despise.
Hell yes. It’s still misguided, but at least it avoids the ridiculous collective guilt you’ve been assigning.
Well, let’s get back to the issue at hand: Does the US share some blame for the bombings today in London?
Let’s assume that the bombers were motivated by the war in Iraq. I can certainly agree then, that had we not invaded Iraq no bombs would have been set off in London today. How does that translate to blame, though?
Are the police who beat Rodney King partially to blame for the LA riots? How about the jury that acquitted the cops?
No, the blame for any act rests solely on the perpetrator of that act, no matter the reason for that act, unless, of course, they were coerced in some way by another person or group. Did the US in any way coerce the London bombers? No. Therefore, no blame for the US.
Ok, I chased this around for about 30 minutes and I still don’t understand how you can think what appear to be two contradictory things. Please elaborate.
If the “mission” is stupid (as this one is), requiring the troops to do it anyway is not support.
This damn fool war should not have been started in the first place. But since it has, we citizens have an obligation to end it as soon as possible and stop putting our troops in harm’s way unnecessarily.
So because you believe the invasion was unjustified, the civilian deaths somehow become just as intentional, full of malice, and morally equivalent to those caused by Osama bin Laden? If I disagree on the intervention in Liberia, does that make the U.S. and U.N. murderers there too?
SLy, perhaps to the people living in Iraq, they do seem as intentional, full of malice, and without moral justification as Americans feel those caused by ObL are.
Or do you deny that any people other than Americans may have a viewpoint?
Well, we know that AQ has representatives in Iraq (i.e. al Zarqawi)…unless you are seriously disputing that either he’s there or that he is associated with AQ. We know there are foreign terrorists in Iraq…whether or not they are AQ is irrelevant IMO…they wouldn’t be there at all, nor would there be any dead Iraqi’s or Afghani’s if they hadn’t flown a plane into a building full of civilians.
But ok…if you want to claim that AQ has nothing to do with Iraq thats fine by me. Is there any proof that there were any Iraqi’s involved in the bombing? The only indications I’ve seen is that AQ is claiming responsibility…and if they have nothing to do with Iraq then I guess Iraq has nothing to do with the bombings in London. Glad we could clear that up.
Who said anything about ‘justify’?? Where do you get this stuff? All I’m saying is that 9/11 directly caused the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq…whether it was justified or not. So yeah…I’d say ObL gets the lions share of the blame. This doesn’t decrease the blame placed on Bush and his merry men in anyway…but you can’t give ObL a pass just because you disagree with the US’s invasion of Iraq.
lol…yeah, you are not partisan at all are you. So, you’d chalk up every possible kill you can dig out of your ass on Bush, and give ObL a pass on anything that can’t be directly proved. Well, you are right…by your count its going to be Bush 10 million or so, ObL 0 (well, maybe 1 or 2 can be ‘proved’). No contest. Glad we could clear that up.
Sickening. You have totally gone around the bend, haven’t you? There is no talking to you on this subject.
Perhaps you refer to the banner which said “We Support Our Troops, When They Shoot Their Officers.” This banner was held, not by the “genuises from A.N.S.W.E.R.”, but a guy who self-identifies as a “class-war anarchist,” not exactly a synonym for liberal. CITE
I don’t have time right now to address your other “instances,” but I think the items above are sufficient for me to “discount your position,” especially when your posting style makes you look like the Scott Plaid of the Right.
Does the word “forseeable” mean anything to you?
These examples are not analogous. None of them are in themselves illegal and violent acts and none of the consequences could have been predicted.
[quote=John Mace=Well, let’s get back to the issue at hand: Does the US share some blame for the bombings today in London?
Let’s assume that the bombers were motivated by the war in Iraq. I can certainly agree then, that had we not invaded Iraq no bombs would have been set off in London today. How does that translate to blame, though?[/quote]
Because it was a predictable consequence of an unnecessary and criminal act by the US.
They have a tiny sliver of blame, yes.
Absolutely. I’ve always thought so.
I respectfully disagree. I believe that the provocation of a crime carries its own culpability.
I will say once again, though, that I am not attempting to exculpate the bombers. I’m trying to spread the blame, not shift it.
It’s not a question of “belief,” it’s an objective fact that the invasion of Iraq had no legal justification and even more to the point, it was unarguably unnecesary and non-defensive. It was patently illegal. Liberia was not.
Yes. In fact, it is quite foreseeable that loonies might get inspired by a videogame to go shoot up a crowded area. That’s what loonies do, after all. Terrorists too, though not so much using Doom as an excuse.
The hell with “illegal.” Nobody outside your insulated bubble gives a damn about the supposedly “illegal” status of the war. If that’s all you’ve got to hang your argument on, your argument is singularly unimpressive, not to mention so alienating as to be wholly counterproductive.
I’m dead serious. There is an entire class of citizens out there who support the bastards in charge of this clown show simple because people like you go around blaming them and their country for the blood on the streets and platforms of London tonight.
AQ does not automatically = ObL- at least not any more. I’m not saying AQ or other so-called “terrorist” operatives are not operating in Iraq, I’m saying there is no evidence that I know of that these operatives are being persnally directed by bin Laden.
And you’re right. Iraq- as in the country of Iraq- had nothing to do with the London bombings. It was a retaliation by non-Iraqis for the UK’s complicity in what those non-Iraqis see as an attack on fellow Muslims.
Not Iraq, it didn’t. Iraq was decided on before 9/11 ever happened.
He gets a conditional pass on the insurgency in Iraq, not because the invasion was unjustified but because it has not been proven that ObL has had anything to do with directing the insurgency.
Not true, I’m limiting myself only to civilian deaths caused my the US military…and to make it even easier, I’ll further limit that only to civilian casualties in Iraq.
Well, duh. Why should he be blamed for actions which he can’t be proven to have been involved with?
Strawman. Let’s call it something more like Bush: 10,000, ObL, maybe 5000.
Well, he’s the figurehead of the organization isn’t he? Much like Bush is getting the blame, though he isn’t personally directing the troops in the field in Iraq.
This justifies nothing…but then you knew that. Its actually less justification than the US had to invade Iraq in fact.
Yeah, I’ve seen this before. I disagree of course. Without 9/11 there simply would have been no invasion of either Iraq or Afghanistan. Bush may have WANTED to invade…but wish in one hand and shit in the other then notice which fills faster. Bush simply put didn’t have the political capital to appoint a dog catcher let alone start a pre-emptive war with either Afghanistan OR Iraq…until 9/11 happened.
ObL is responsible because the events HE kicked off, i.e. the 9/11 attacks, lead to the US invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. He is further responsible as the titular leader of AQ…and he also gave his ‘blessing’ to the Iraqi struggle and annointed AZ as his main mellon there. Whether he is intimately involved means nothing. His group is responsible for the casualties they inflict…especially in light of the fact that you are going to put that same responsibility on Bush (rightfully in this case).
I was laughing more at your requirements for the level of ‘proof’ for ObL…and the irony of your attitude with Bush.
Well, for a second, lets say I accept these figures. There is, of course, a key difference between the figures. ObL’s casualties were deliberately inflicted on civilians. The US’s figures were inflicted by accident during an invasion and a civil war…with the US taking steps to try and minimize those casualties as much as possible. Direct deaths on the order of what ObL and AQ has inflicted on the US side would more rightfully be listed in the 10’s or possibly 100’s (i.e. civilians possibly tortured to death or killed deliberately in our camps…I’d say the REAL figure is something less than 10 but I have no real idea and I doubt anyone else does either).
1 is too many. But you see, here you get into whats necessary and whats unnecessary. You don’t accept that the invasion of Iraq was necessary…and I agree. But I also acknowledge that many people, and especially our government, elected by the people, don’t agree with me on this…they DO think the invasion was necessary. And then there is the fact that the US really tried and continues to try to minimize civilian casualties…whereas AQ directly targets civilians. I think its a key difference.
Wow, Blair must be a really good politician; I don’t think anyone on this thread has blamed him yet. Or maybe it’s too soon.
Anyways, the appropriate response to this attack is to increase intelligence efforts in tracking down terrorists and foiling attacks before they happen. That’s the key to stopping terrorist threats. Most precautions taken security-wise help, of course, but only make things harder, not impossible.
Your definitions of “objective” and “unarguably” differ greatly from mine, and I oppose the war. As well, to the Liberian government, such as it existed, I am fairly comfortable that the Liberian “invasion” was just as illegal. In the end, however, it does not matter, because I believe you are using your own belief system alone to say what is justified and what is not, and calling everything that does not fall on the right side of it unequivocal murder.
For sake of argument, assuming Iraq was and is “patently illegal,” I also think you are being somewhat willfully (I hope) blind in not being able to see the difference between specifically targetting civilians (and avoiding military targets) for death, and killing civilians accidentally, or even in very low numbers intentionally, as a byproduct of a fight against armed parties.
Um…yes he is. He’s the Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces. What do you think that means?
ObL, by contrast, has not even been shown to have been in contact with anyone in Iraq, much less that he’s directing anything. Hell, I’m not even sure he’s still alive.
I not only KNOW it, I’ve SAID it repeatedly.
I disagree that the US had any more justification but I agree that the London bombings were not justified in any way, and I never said they were.
You haven’t been paying attention then.
Bush was going to invade no matter what/ 9/11 gave him a handy excuse but he showed every intention of doing it regardless. the “WMD” canard would have worked just fine even without 9/11.
Not Iraq.
This dog isn’t going to hunt. We know full well that Bush is in complete control of the US military and that the invasion of Iraq was his idea and his decision. We don’t know that ObL has had anything to do with the insurgency in Iraq. We don’t even know if he’s alive.
Since the war was not justified, non-defensive and illegal, none of the civilian deaths caused by the US invasion of Iraq can be justified. I think it’s akin to felony murder. If you’re robbing a bank and you’re only trying to shoot at the cops, you don’t get a pass for “trying not” to kill any civilians you shoot by accident.
Direct deaths caused by Obl probably can’t be counted much higher than 9/11. When I said 5000, I was being generous. crediting him with 100,000 is ridiculous.
I don’t believe that for a second. I think they knew damn well that Iraq was not a threat to the US and that they chose to invade for completely cynical and self-serving reasons. I don’t believe for a moment that Bush or anyone else in his inner circle ever sincerely thought the US was in danger from Iraq.
When the invasion isn’t justified, it means nothing to “minimize” civilian casulaties (which I don’t believe we really tried to do anyway).
Supposedly several, though we’ll have to wait for declassification to know for sure. Intelligence successes are probably the least trumpeted of enforcement victories. They often interupt attacks in the planning stage. Such achievements probably seem not that glorious when presented in the mass media (“oh wow, they confiscated a laptop”), but what they potentially stop can be huge.
Back to the claim that, in a Lincolnesques manner, extreme risks justify extreme measures …
I do not belittle the loss of life, in England or in NY, but on the scale of risk these are not extreme times. That anyone seriously believes that such atttacks justify the curtailment of of the principles that make our country great is proofof how terrorism works. They are dramatic acts. They are designed to produce irrational fear and they succeed.
Every year 17,000 Americans die in homicides, 30,000 of suicide, 73,000 of complications of diabetes, 105,000 in accidents.
My risk of death is much greater driving than by a terror attack. Does that justify eliminating cars? Obviously, I take that risk, as tragic as those deaths are, in return for the lifestyle that driving affords me. And so we must take a certain risk to preserve that which is great of our country.
Funny how many flag wavers will defend to their last breath thier right to ride a motor cycle without a helmet or to own a gun or to smoke in a public place, but have no problem limiting the rights of other citiz