Most people probably don't know that a rocket was fired into Somalia, to take out some Al Queda. But the Al Queda were not there. And civilians were killed. No apology, no restitution, no acknowledgment of collateral damage. Imagine if this happened to you, in your neighborhood. Maybe in SoCal. That's what this article is about. http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt319.html Intro
Read the whole thing, then the source article @ Mother Jones (linked inside). No, they don't bother to look. They get intel, they feel pretty confident it is good, they launch a missile or drop a bomb, and if the intel is wrong, they kill civilians. The differences IMO between collateral damage and terrorism are criminal negligence and intent. It's an interesting look at how "we" view the world, and our right to "police" it, typically in a manner we would not allow others to use on us. It would not be acceptable for the Russians or anyone else to attack a potential target in the US without consultation, without regard for cooperation, or civilian casualties. Heart breaking reading about the Iraqi wedding party getting killed because they went out into the desert to celebrate. It wasn't that they were being suspicious, but that the local commander didn't understand cultural nuances enough to think before acting. To him, it was suspicious. To another Iraqi, it probably wouldn't warrant a second thought. I think this stuff is wrong if it happens to a Jew, a Communist, an American, a woman, a Catholic, a child, anyone. I don't think the threat of terrorism validates it.
I'd like to believe that most folks would be concerned and upset if they knew this was how business was conducted internationally. I don't know if ignorance is a crime, or an adequate defense, but believe me, most people don't know about this stuff. It isn't reported.
Most people are not so dishonest. Most people are not so gullible to take yet another story of tearing America down with any amount of credibility when it comes from the same person, day in and day out. It is a fabricated story, cleverly designed to appeal to emotion, using dishonest assumptions that are simply not based upon fact. In an attempt to give the fabricated story some credibility, links are cleverly inserted just after wild accusations. What this does is, allows the reader to absorb the dishonesty the author wants to convey. Then, he inserts something that is a neutral fact and attaches a link to a reputable source in order to attempt to lend credibility to what he is saying. I can see where some might fall for it. However, if one really took the time to read the story, then follow the links, they will see that there is no mention anywhere of the fabricated elements in the base of the story. Let's review: 1) The fabricated story starts off in the first few paragraphs painting a sad story that the author hopes anyone would find heart breaking. Then he attempts his first bait and switch with a quote from the "kremlin" about going after terrorists. Problem? That is a statement of fact, it doesn't not validate the fabricated story the author created. 2) The author then goes on to create more fabrication in hopes of "identifying" with ordinary Americans, so that he can win them over by talking about things that might relate to them. This is actually a good sales strategy. However, the author is selling dishonesty. 3) The author then goes on with the story and we come to the part where he suggests it was not successful and the targets were not hit. Wait...which source confirms this? None that I found. Then we continue with the story and in hopes that the reader will buy into his unsourced claim, he inserts a link to another story, suggesting this is the fourth of the same kind. However, when the informed reader views that source, it simply talks about what is known: It lists an islamist as a source, but no where is there any confirmation that anything like what the author has portrayed, has actually happened. In fact, US officials said they have not fully assessed the damage. Apparently in the absence of facts, this dishonest author just makes up his own facts. 4) The story then continues on with more tear jerking, but we're missing something...what are we missing? Ah yes, we need to put something in about how evil GWB is. How can we have a dishonest fabricated story that simply doesn't support any of the references it provides, without something bad about GWB? That will surely win over the reader audience! Problem? It's dishonest and made up as well. 5) Next, the author attempts to reign in some credibility for his dishonest and fabricated article by referencing a Pentagon Briefing. Why not? I mean, what would work better than to make up your own facts, then provide links on words, where the actual linked word is somewhat relevant, but has absolutely no bearing what-so-ever on the actual "story?" And it goes on and on and on from there. Anti-American propaganda at it's finest. It's amazing how much aid and comfort some people who pretend to be America will give to terrorist groups. Another dishonest "blame America first" post, courtesy of guerilla. Next time, post something with a little credibility for a change.
And with good reason. It's not factually correct. It's dishonest. Some people have higher ethical standards. Others don't.
Speaking of ignorance, looks like my forum shadow has arrived! Thank God DP provides me with the IGNORE function. It almost makes GTech tolerable.
No doubt you would not stand behind such blatant propaganda. True cowards will always hide from dishonest words.
GTech, I have no idea what you are writing, but I bet you are all lathered up. "hate america", "it ain't true", "we had to kill them, they're muslim!", "civilians are cowards!", "war on terror!" "Hoo-rah!" lmao! Hopefully AGS comes along and quotes you so I can read it.
I have posted zillions of times about how we helped to destroy any chance of democracy in iran in the 1950's by forcefully helping to take out what would have been a very good democratically elected leader in iran Mossadegh. We have been doing stuff like this to third world countries since after ww2. The soviet union also did it, and china to some degree is also doing it. The moral of the story with human nature is that it hasnt changed yet since the beginning of civilization. The strong will always drain the weak. Hopefully one day our species will wake up and start truely caring for itself. I myself feel that the nanotech age will change all of that. I hope it gets here fast cause we really need something.
The article references another magazine, for more material about the "Decapitation Bombings" that have caused "collateral damage" against civilians. I wish I could take credit, but it's in the article I referenced. This line is mine, I'm particularly fond of it,
I take it you have him on ignore as well. Pingpong raises a very good point. And you will always have civil unrest in a country that knows its government is being controled by an overseas power.
I don't think tech will be the answer. We need a change in attitudes, and the way to do that is through liberty, because socialism creates class struggles and fascism creates slavery. What bothers me, is the prevailing attitude that it is acceptable to kill 3 civilians trying to kill a terrorist. I understand that in trying to kill a terrorist, casualties can happen, but is that really what we are all about? Unmanned planes flying around bombing countries and firing missiles at houses? It's pretty creepy that it doesn't matter how many Somalis or Iraqis or Afghanis die. We're devaluing life, even our own. But it truly is sad to see wedding parties bombed by ignorant commanders, and assassinations being carried out with bad intel that leads to ONLY civilian deaths. There has to be a better way. I seriously doubt we are making any friends in Somalia with these attacks. Probably not doing a whole lot for winning hearts and minds. I tried to set him to murderer, but the only setting we had was ignore. So I compromised. I got another stalker now, and the new one likes to talk economics, which is more fun for me than riling GTech up.