DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on May 09, 2007, 06:38:53 PM
-
from the Juan Cole website today
<<Or also from McClatchy, there is this item: "Around 10.30 am , an American helicopter opened fire on a primary school at Al-Nida ( 9 km north west of Mendli ) killing 7 pupils and injuring 3 other pupils with huge damage to the school building . Eyewitnesses confirmed this report while the American side said that they opened fire on the building after being fired from it."
<<It could be a mistake. Or, it is entirely possible that a guerrilla positioned himself in the building and fired on the Americans from it, knowing that they would return fire and kill some little children. Sunni Arab guerrillas have been playing that game with US troops for several years, shooting at them from civilian crowds, e.g. If the guerrillas regularly do that, it makes it more likely that the US will make a mistake even when not actually fired on.>>
-
Americans are wearing armor made from aramid fibers , carbon fibers , ceramic plates , aluminum and steel.
Islamofascists are wearing children?
If they are attempting to reduce the safety of the people generally , then what are they trying to protect?
Oil , ..power , ......Allah?
-
"I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused" [T-Shirt slogan]
An American helicopter knowingly and deliberately fires at an elementary school during school hours and kills seven kids.
Who's to blame for this? The Americans in the helicopter? Perish the thought! The Taliban are to blame for this. They "wear" children as defensive armour. So says plane.
The helicopter pilots and gunners of course had no choice. They could not simply have flown away from the gunman on the school roof. How could they help but fire on the school and on the children inside? It's not as if they had free will or exercised moral choices.
When I posted this article, I did not dream for a minute that anyone would actually defend this act. I posted it basically in response to sirs' ridiculous claims that U.S. forces did not "target" women and children - - that every one of those hundreds of thousands of casualties, that mountain of tiny corpses killed by American fire, was a "tragic accident," that - - unlike the "barbaric" enemy - - the U.S. could not and would not, ever, "target" innocent little girls, to use sirs' words.
Well, guess what folks - - regardless of how good or how bad the Taliban are, the Americans DO target innocent little girls, and innocent little boys too, we don't wanna accuse them of being sexist, any child of either sex will do just fine for these barbarians.
I'm not usually one for Biblical quotations, but two come irresistibly to mind at the present time, both as it happens from the New Testament, not as accurately as I'd like them to be but the best I can do from memory: 1. Woe unto ye who call good evil and evil good (that was for plane) and 2. [for those who target children] better for you that a millstone were tied around your neck and you were cast into the depths of the sea.
-
"I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused" [T-Shirt slogan]
An American helicopter knowingly and deliberately fires at an elementary school during school hours and kills seven kids.
Who's to blame for this? The Americans in the helicopter? Perish the thought! The Taliban are to blame for this. They "wear" children as defensive armour. So says plane.
The helicopter pilots and gunners of course had no choice. They could not simply have flown away from the gunman on the school roof. How could they help but fire on the school and on the children inside? It's not as if they had free will or exercised moral choices.
When I posted this article, I did not dream for a minute that anyone would actually defend this act. I posted it basically in response to sirs' ridiculous claims that U.S. forces did not "target" women and children - - that every one of those hundreds of thousands of casualties, that mountain of tiny corpses killed by American fire, was a "tragic accident," that - - unlike the "barbaric" enemy - - the U.S. could not and would not, ever, "target" innocent little girls, to use sirs' words.
Well, guess what folks - - regardless of how good or how bad the Taliban are, the Americans DO target innocent little girls, and innocent little boys too, we don't wanna accuse them of being sexist, any child of either sex will do just fine for these barbarians.
I'm not usually one for Biblical quotations, but two come irresistibly to mind at the present time, both as it happens from the New Testament, not as accurately as I'd like them to be but the best I can do from memory: 1. Woe unto ye who call good evil and evil good (that was for plane) and 2. [for those who target children] better for you that a millstone were tied around your neck and you were cast into the depths of the sea.
There is no question that the gunner who shot at a helicopter knew he was on the roof of a school , so he was certainly targeting Children.
Is it impossible that the helicopter pilot did not know that the building was a school?
Could you provide a link to further information re. this incident?
-
An American helicopter knowingly and deliberately fires at an elementary school during school hours and kills seven kids. When I posted this article, I did not dream for a minute that anyone would actually defend this act. I posted it basically in response to sirs' ridiculous claims that U.S. forces did not "target" women and children
Perhaps Tee can demonstrate for us the fact that the helicopter KNEW it was a school they were firing at in response to being fired upon, and how the children were his intended targets in order to validate this asanine notion that they were "deliberately targeting chilkdren". We shall all wait patiently for Tee to present that evidence, vs his simple U.S. military are just a bunch of raping murderering thugs say so
-
<<Is it impossible that the helicopter pilot did not know that the building was a school?>>
Yeah, that makes sense. The U.S. has only been there for how many years? And so how would their maps of the area show which buildings were schools or hospitals? Where did they think the schools were? Underground? And if they didn't know who was in the building, why fire at it at all, when the option was to pull back out of range till they could figure things out?
I figure, if anyone brought me a map of my area, I could point out in a few seconds where the schools are. This is not rocket science. You don't need the best map-makers in the country. But maybe the Americans were too busy to worry about trivia like that. In all the years they've been there, who had the time to undertake the Herculean labour of showing the schools on the local maps? The great task of course is to bring "democracy" to these people, not to mark all the schools on maps issued to helicopter gunship pilots. Yeah, this must have been just one more 'tragic error" in a long history of "tragic errors."
-
So, in other words, no evidence, just your say so that helicopter knew it was a school and actually intended to kill children. gotcha
::)
-
<<There is no question that the gunner who shot at a helicopter knew he was on the roof of a school , so he was certainly targeting Children.>>
How is there no question? What if he were one of those al-Qaeda imports you're so worried about, fresh off the bus from Afghanistan? How would the poor bugger even know what a school looks like?
Besides, if he shot at the helicopter, I'd say he targeted the helicopter and its occupants, unless he's the worst fucking marksman on the planet. If the guys in the helicopter shot at the school, they targeted the school and its occupants.
That's how it works, plane. That's what "targeting" means.
-
<<So, in other words, no evidence, just your say so that helicopter knew it was a school and actually intended to kill children. gotcha>>
Well, that's one possible explanation and probably by far the likeliest, but there are others as well. Like the American military are such fucking idiots that in four years they haven't figured out where the elementary schools are. Or they're so monstrously indifferent to the loss of innocent civilian life, kids included, that they know where the schools are but don't bother to map them for their helicopter gunship pilots.
Your choice, sirs. Which one do you think it is?
-
My choice would be that your say so seems to be heading the list. Get back to us when you actually have reported evidence that the helipcopter, in response to being shot at, knew they were shooting at a school, and of course, had every intention of killing children. That is what your thread is specifically implying
-
Well, of course, I was specifically implying what I felt was far the likeliest explanation - - that the U.S. military, not being a bunch of fucking idiots, had in fact ascertained the location of all schools in the area, put it on maps, given maps to the helicopter pilots - - who then attacked the school not giving a shit how many kids they'd kill or wound. I mean, that is the least surprising of all scenarios.
But I gave you the other rational possibilities to mull over, sirs - - I wouldn't want to force you into accepting my position. Was the U.S. so fucking stupid that in four years they failed to ascertain or map the location of elementary schools in the area? Were the pilots so fucking stupid as to fly without maps and their commanders so fucking stupid as to allow it? Or were they so fucking callous that they knew where all the schools in the area were and just didn't bother to put it on the pilots' maps?
Seems like I exhausted all the possibilities here, sirs - - and told you which one I believe in. Which one do you believe in?
-
Seems like I exhausted all the possibilities here, sirs - - and told you which one I believe in. Which one do you believe in?
Actually, there'd be at least one more plausible scenario, that doesn't include the dripping in hatred of our military. So, until I see/read evidence to the contrary, I'm going to be giving the benefit of the doubt to the pilot of a U.S. Helicopter that came under attack, and upon confirming the location of the attack, targeted that specific location and fired upon it.
It's also likely the pilot will be too emotionally traumatized to continue flying, after he was informed of the children that were tragically accidentally killed, from his actions. Just speculation on my part, but just helps further rebutt the asanine notion that the children were deliberately targeted
-
<<There is no question that the gunner who shot at a helicopter knew he was on the roof of a school , so he was certainly targeting Children.>>
How is there no question? What if he were one of those al-Qaeda imports you're so worried about, fresh off the bus from Afghanistan? How would the poor bugger even know what a school looks like?
Besides, if he shot at the helicopter, I'd say he targeted the helicopter and its occupants, unless he's the worst fucking marksman on the planet. If the guys in the helicopter shot at the school, they targeted the school and its occupants.
That's how it works, plane. That's what "targeting" means.
I would hate to argue that a member of the Al Quieda might not be an idiot ,so I accept your proposition that this guy climbed to the top of this building wthout realiseing what it was and fired on an helicopter without realiseing that there would be retun fire. Such idiocy precludes the possibibility of planning to cause this incident pretty much as it was.
I get the feeling that you are not familliar with flight very much ,finding a particular building takes some effort , you can't read the street signs from up there. It is very plausable that the pilot had no idea that this particular building was a school.
-
<<It's also likely the pilot will be too emotionally traumatized to continue flying, after he was informed of the children that were tragically accidentally killed, from his actions.>>
ROTFLMFAO. That was hilarious. Thanks, sirs.
Know this Army joke from Viet Nam?
Q. How can you guys shoot little kids?
A. Easy. You don't lead them so much.
("lead" means you aim in front of a moving target, so target and round will arrive at the same place at the same time.)
-
<<I get the feeling that you are not familliar with flight very much ,finding a particular building takes some effort , you can't read the street signs from up there. It is very plausable that the pilot had no idea that this particular building was a school.>>
I get the feeling you are not very familiar with state-of-the-art GPS systems which the helicopter pilots undoubtedly have, and in four years, I would think the Americans, if they were even faintly interested in avoiding shooting up little kids, would have programmed all elementary school locations into their GPS. Failing that, a simple white-painted visible symbol painted on a roof or nearby structure would be an acceptable low-tech solution for those unwilling or unable to read maps or follow GPS. Daily patrols could watch for bogus symbols or the eradication of known symbols - - IF there was an interest in avoiding these type of casualties.
So between maps, GPS and marker symbols, I would think there is sufficient opportunity to recognize an elementary school from a helicopter. When in doubt and the pilot can easily fly out of the range of the ground fire, the self-defence argument is just pure bs. So is the "poor me, I can't tell an elementary school from an oil refinery" argument. Schools have a fairly recognizable appearance and if the guy can't tell that a building could be an elementary school, given the maps, GPS and possible marking systems available, he shouldn't be walking the streets unescorted, let alone flying helicopters.
-
<<It's also likely the pilot will be too emotionally traumatized to continue flying, after he was informed of the children that were tragically accidentally killed, from his actions.>>
ROTFLMFAO. That was hilarious. Thanks, sirs.
Know this Army joke from Viet Nam?
Q. How can you guys shoot little kids?
A. Easy. You don't lead them so much.
("lead" means you aim in front of a moving target, so target and round will arrive at the same place at the same time.)
And this garbage is why you have so little credibilty with even the more moderate posters, in this forum >:(
-
And this garbage is why you have so little credibilty with even the more moderate posters, in this forum
And everyone believes you, of course. ::)
-
<<And this garbage is why you have so little credibilty with even the more moderate posters, in this forum >>
The only persons with whom I have "so little credibility" in this forum or elsewhere, seem to be you and the handful of right-wing zealots who "think" like you (if indeed what goes on inside your sick, twisted "brain" can be described as "thought") and can't stand to have the raw ugly facts about your great national army of torturing, raping, murdering thugs brought into the light of day. My credibility is fine with the people whose thoughts actually matter, i.e., those who can see the truth without the star-spangled red-white-and-blue blinkers that filter every single fact that ever makes it into the primeval sludge slopping around between your ears where a brain should be.
But I was really kind of gratified to see that you've apparently given up on the totally absurd "must have been some kind of tragic mistake" argument you started off with, because obviously you realized the hopelessness of your position when faced wth the facts and logic that I brought to bear on it. You were wise. Better to ignore that kind of rational argument, where you'd only wind up looking like a bigger fool than you already are, and concentrate instead on invective and ad hominem argument ("garbage" and "total lack of credibility" allegations) that you're more comfortable with.
-
<<I get the feeling that you are not familliar with flight very much ,finding a particular building takes some effort , you can't read the street signs from up there. It is very plausable that the pilot had no idea that this particular building was a school.>>
I get the feeling you are not very familiar with state-of-the-art GPS systems which the helicopter pilots undoubtedly have, and in four years, I would think the Americans, if they were even faintly interested in avoiding shooting up little kids, would have programmed all elementary school locations into their GPS. Failing that, a simple white-painted visible symbol painted on a roof or nearby structure would be an acceptable low-tech solution for those unwilling or unable to read maps or follow GPS. Daily patrols could watch for bogus symbols or the eradication of known symbols - - IF there was an interest in avoiding these type of casualties.
So between maps, GPS and marker symbols, I would think there is sufficient opportunity to recognize an elementary school from a helicopter. When in doubt and the pilot can easily fly out of the range of the ground fire, the self-defense argument is just pure BS. So is the "poor me, I can't tell an elementary school from an oil refinery" argument. Schools have a fairly recognizable appearance and if the guy can't tell that a building could be an elementary school, given the maps, GPS and possible marking systems available, he shouldn't be walking the streets unescorted, let alone flying helicopters.
Without exception an ambusher has the choice of location and time , the gunner who placed his gun on the roof of a school and fired it at a gunship while school was in session is the villain and his responsibility is not shared. The children's deaths were pleasant news to Al Queda ears , how could this have happened the way it did without the choice of time and place made by the attackers?
No it is not easy for a Helicopter to fly out of range of missles . Would it be hard for Al Queda to choose ambush sites that were not full of children?
I don't know exactly how to tell you how unusefull it is to suggest that schools have a mark on them whether high or low tech , what would not be marked as a school shortly?
The Al Queda is villanous and they are useing villany as if it were virtue.
-
<<Without exception an ambusher has the choice of location and time , the gunner who placed his gun on the roof of a school and fired it at a gunship while school was in session is the villain >>
And yet his villainy cost no lives. There were much bigger villains in the story.
<< . . . and his responsibility is not shared. >>
Complete and utter bullshit. Not only shared, but out-done, and on a massive scale. The cowardly bastards who fired back into the school put their own miserable war-criminal lives above the lives of innocent schoolchildren. IF in fact their lives were at stake, which of course they never were. Lower than that you cannot go.
<<The children's deaths were pleasant news to Al Queda ears . . . >>
And you know that because . . . ? As a matter of fact, the children's deaths don't seem to be causing you any great distress, you seem to be expending most of your effort on defending their killers.
<< . . . how could this have happened the way it did without the choice of time and place made by the attackers?>>
It could easily have NOT happened had the cowardly rats simply taken evasive action or chosen not to fire on an elementary school in session. That's pretty basic, plane.
<<No it is not easy for a Helicopter to fly out of range of missles. >>
I wasn't aware that missiles were being fired. They proabably were not. But even if they were, there are many ways for a helicopter to avoid a missile. They fuck up the missile's guidance system in many different ways. They take evasive action. Surely you are not going to argue that every missile fired at a helicopter hits its target? That's absurd.
<<Would it be hard for Al Queda to choose ambush sites that were not full of children? >>
That's not the nature of al Qaeda. They don't give a shit about the kids. Apparently neither do U.S. helicopter crews. They are therefore no better than al Qaeda and should give up their ridiculous pretensions to moral superiority.
<<I don't know exactly how to tell you how unusefull it is to suggest that schools have a mark on them whether high or low tech , what would not be marked as a school shortly?>>
According to that brilliant theory, it would be useless to mark hospitals or ambulances with a red cross because everthing would soon be marked with a red cross. It just doesn't work that way in real life, plane.
<<The Al Queda is villanous and they are useing villany as if it were virtue.>>
They are no worse than the American army and as soon as you people give up your ridiculous claims to a higher virtue, the better it will be for everyone. You are living lives full of bullshit and hypocrisy and making the world suffer because you actually believe that shit. You are no better than anyone else, and if recent events are any reliable guide, you may well be a good deal worse.
-
The only persons with whom I have "so little credibility" in this forum or elsewhere, seem to be you and the handful of right-wing zealots who "think" like you (if indeed what goes on inside your sick, twisted "brain" can be described as "thought") and can't stand to have the raw ugly facts about your great national army of torturing, raping, murdering thugs brought into the light of day. .... I was really kind of gratified to see that you've apparently given up on the totally absurd "must have been some kind of tragic mistake" argument you started off with, because obviously you realized the hopelessness of your position when faced wth the facts and logic that I brought to bear on it. You were wise. Yada, rant, blather, rant
LOL I needed a good laugh upon my return from vacation. Thanks Tee 8)
-
Always glad to be of service, sirs, glad you enjoyed your little laugh and hope you had a great vacation. You were missed. Others tried but no one could quite rise to the level of right-wing lunacy I have come to expect from you.
-
Under what circumstances does a victim of an ambush share responsibility for the time and place choice of the ambush?
What kind of aircraft can read the street signs as it passes over?
I call you wrong on all counts and your rebuttal weak.
Al Queda gunmen are villans and their only defense is hiding ,they defend nothing , rather they perform ambush from the first with more chance of killing the innocent than their enemy.
Their shame is not matched in the world.
-
Always glad to be of service, sirs, glad you enjoyed your little laugh and hope you had a great vacation. You were missed. Others tried but no one could quite rise to the level of right-wing lunacy I have come to expect from you.
Boy, the sense of projection was pretty ominous in that one. The notion, which is idiotic in its least form, and patently asanine in it's worst, to imply that the U.S. routinely aims and "leads" to target children, is beyond appalling. And the stuff you're just NOW starting to grasp as to the levels of torture that was routine within Sunni & AlQeada-like terrorist groups, has been chronicled and spoken about adnauseum for years. You simply refused to believe it, and instead wrapped yourself around the idiocy that such measures of routine torture was SOP for the U.S. military, and of course validated so by how well they keep it secret from all of us. :-\
The lunacy my dear friend Tee, is the likes of your commentary represented by this very thread. Now, if such a proclaimation on my part gets me a reprimand from someone like Plane or Bt, I'll endeavor to take responsibility for my actions. If I'm asked (or told) to take a longer vacation, then I'll accept the consequences to my words
-
Boy, the sense of projection was pretty ominous in that one. ...........The lunacy my dear friend Tee, .......
It is scriptural that wisdom seems foolish to a fool.
Who is sure of which side of this one is on?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=23&verse=9&version=31&context=verse
-
<<The notion, which is idiotic in its least form, and patently asanine in it's worst, to imply that the U.S. routinely aims and "leads" to target children, is beyond appalling. >>
When did I say it was routine? The joke is a joke. You can take what you like from it - - that the soldiers had a macabre sense of humour, nothing more; or they didn't give a shit. Or some of A and some of B.
<<And the stuff you're just NOW starting to grasp as to the levels of torture that was routine within Sunni & AlQeada-like terrorist groups, has been chronicled and spoken about adnauseum for years. You simply refused to believe it, . . . >>
Ridiculous. Of course I believed it. And I believed that in many cases (Saddam, al Qaeda) it was bought and paid for by the U.S. The U.S. sponsored regimes all across the Middle East, Central and South America and Indonesia that did the same or worse. They continued to back Israel even after the Israelis legalized torture. To claim that there is some kind of moral gulf between the U.S. and al Qaeda based on the use of torture or the slaughter of innocent civilians is ludicrous.
The one single thing I fault myself for was that my gag reflex was toned down by a sense of moral relativism. I was more outraged at the U.S. doing this than I was by al Qaeda simply because I, and the whole world, expects a lot more from the U.S. than we do from al Qaeda.
<< . . . and instead wrapped yourself around the idiocy that such measures of routine torture was SOP for the U.S. military, and of course validated so by how well they keep it secret from all of us.>>
Well, you got that right, mostly, and there's nothing idiotic about it. The "President" reserves the right to define for himself what is torture, the Pentagon is still keeping 90% of the Abu Ghraib pictures and videos under wraps and nobody has ever opened a window into the secret torture chambers maintained by the U.S. government around the world, or what goes on whan a prisoner is "rendered" by the U.S. into the custody of foreign governments for torture. I think maybe by this point the U.S. military has refined its procedures and divided up the labours, so that the grunt in the field doesn't have responsibility for torturing the prisoners, they probably passed that on to specialists or out-sourced it to "contractors" or by rendition to third countries.
<<The lunacy my dear friend Tee, is the likes of your commentary represented by this very thread. Now, if such a proclaimation on my part gets me a reprimand from someone like Plane or Bt, I'll endeavor to take responsibility for my actions. If I'm asked (or told) to take a longer vacation, then I'll accept the consequences to my words>>
sirs, if you DIDN'T call my thoughts lunacy, I would have to worry about their correctness. I don't think anyone is going to call you on the "lunacy" allegations, particularly since I was the one who raised them in the first place.
You're not entirely wrong, though. I really did lose sight of how nauseating and repulsive those "Resistance fighters" really are. They're enemies of humanity in every sense of the word and deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth. And then maybe we can look at the Americans who sponsored them in the first place and who turned a blind eye to everything that they and people like them were doing all over the world for America, with American help and blessing. Guys like Negroponte. Guys like George H.W. Bush. If there's gonna be an accounting, let it be across the board.