American Death Squads

[Amianthus]

Only the IRS knows.

There are lots of taxes that the IRS has no control over.

[sirs]

<<Ahh, the ones that actually have no choice where there $$$ are used for.  Brilliance>>

Not as brilliant as the guy who apparently thinks that the guy in some remote Afghan village has a real choice between supporting or not supporting the local Taliban.

WOW....a response.  Not a well thought out one, but wow

the choice is between paying or not paying the income tax, since money is fungible and he's paying into the fund from which the wars are (or more accurately, someday will be) paid for.

The choice is going to jail or....not??

[Amianthus]

[sirs]

AWESOME pic, Ami.  Thanks     

[Michael Tee]

<<WOW....a response.  Not a well thought out one, but wow>>

Inadvertent.  I thought that was Ami's post. 

[sirs]

Well, at least you give other readers more reasons to doubt whatever credibility you think you still have, by continuing to ignore direct debate-oriented inquiries.  Your call

[Michael Tee]

<<HONOR.  The difference between the good guys and the bad guys . . . >>

I didn't have to wonder too long what kind of fucking moron would be taken in by this pathetic piece of self-serving, self-praising bilge-crap.

The responses to your post provided the answer almost instantly.

People who liked this poster also liked:  

 http://www.nazi-lauck-nsdapao.com/pt-2708-75dpi.jpg

[sirs]

Well, at least you give other readers more reasons to doubt whatever credibility you think you still have, by continuing to ignore direct debate-oriented inquiries.  Your call

Heck, you could have even removed the whole response.  Pretend it never happened, and calm any emotional trauma you may have had to endure     

Nice knee jerk application of the nazi card, though.  Herr Hitler would be proud of you

[Plane]

<<When they mention a supporter of the Taliban , what do they mean?

<<A Cheerleader wouldn't seem like much of a target , but a food or ammunition supplyer might as well be a soldier himself.>>

On that theory, any American taxpayer would be a legitimate target of any Muslim extremist, including the victims of the 9-11 attacks.

Yes, that does seem to be the theroy they have been operateing with.

If we manage to kill warriors only , that would be a first in all time for any war.

[Michael Tee]

<<If we manage to kill warriors only , that would be a first in all time for any war.>>

plane, once again you've cleverly managed to confuse two separate issues and use the confusion to exonerate American criminal conduct.  I congratulate you on the consistency of your effort.

Collateral damage or the unavoidable infliction of violence on civilians is probably unavoidable in modern warfare, and you are probably correct in saying that if anyone avoids any collateral civilian damage, it will be a first in modern warfare.

The issue in this thread, however, was not accidental or collateral damage to civilians, or at least it wasn't  until you introduced it, but the targeted assassination of CIVILIAN personnel furnishing non-combat support of various unspecified kinds to the "enemy."  This is not an unavoidable feature of modern warfare, in fact it was totally ABSENT from modern warfare until the U.S. used the tactic under Operation Phoenix in the Viet Nam War.  It's criminal and if it is OK to use against the Taliban then it was OK for al Qaeda to use it against the occupants of the WTC on Sept. 11.

[Plane]

<<If we manage to kill warriors only , that would be a first in all time for any war.>>

plane, once again you've cleverly managed to confuse two separate issues and use the confusion to exonerate American criminal conduct.  I congratulate you on the consistency of your effort.

Collateral damage or the unavoidable infliction of violence on civilians is probably unavoidable in modern warfare, and you are probably correct in saying that if anyone avoids any collateral civilian damage, it will be a first in modern warfare.

The issue in this thread, however, was not accidental or collateral damage to civilians, or at least it wasn't  until you introduced it, but the targeted assassination of CIVILIAN personnel furnishing non-combat support of various unspecified kinds to the "enemy."  This is not an unavoidable feature of modern warfare, in fact it was totally ABSENT from modern warfare until the U.S. used the tactic under Operation Phoenix in the Viet Nam War.  It's criminal and if it is OK to use against the Taliban then it was OK for al Qaeda to use it against the occupants of the WTC on Sept. 11.

    I am starting to think you are handing me easy to refute facts because you are fond of me.

      Did you know that Abriham Lincon intentionally fostered food shortages in the Confederacy, blockaded harbors , shelled citys , confiscated food to feed troops and burning the supplys that the troops couldn't carry away?

      That is a good example because it is Americans vs Americans , but take your pick of any other conflict as you please , I am sure you can find a faction here and there that made an honest effort to minimise civilian suffering , but I really doubt that you can find any that really repudiated the practice of cutting the enemy off from supplys , which will of course always causes the colateral damage of reduceing the associated civilians from supplys.

[Michael Tee]

<<Did you know that Abriham Lincon intentionally fostered food shortages in the Confederacy, blockaded harbors , shelled citys , confiscated food to feed troops and burning the supplys that the troops couldn't carry away?>>

Yes, I've known all of that since our Grade 9 course.  So what?  He did not send assassins into civilian homes to murder civilian supporters of the Confederacy.  He did not send assassins into Confederate homes on the pretext of seeking out Confederates home on leave.

      <<That is a good example because it is Americans vs Americans , but take your pick of any other conflict as you please , I am sure you can find a faction here and there that made an honest effort to minimise civilian suffering , but I really doubt that you can find any that really repudiated the practice of cutting the enemy off from supplys , which will of course always causes the colateral damage of reduceing the associated civilians from supplys.>>

You know, plane, we are talking about an unprecedented action here, American death squads.  I believe they originated in the Viet Nam war as the Phoenix program.  There is no precedent for this in civilized modern warfare.  We did not do this in the Second World War.  As far as I know, the fucking Japs didn't do it.  The Nazis probably did, only because they sent assassins out after their own right wing (Ernst Roehm's Sturmabteilung a.k.a. the S.A., the original Brownshirts) during the Night of the Long Knives.

If you want to pretend this is the same as blockading civilians or even bombing them, go ahead.  However I see a huge difference between terroristic assassination teams that target civilians for liquidation and the other forms of warfare you mention.  If you don't see the difference, we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

[Plane]

<<Did you know that Abriham Lincon intentionally fostered food shortages in the Confederacy, blockaded harbors , shelled citys , confiscated food to feed troops and burning the supplys that the troops couldn't carry away?>>

Yes, I've known all of that since our Grade 9 course.  So what?  He did not send assassins into civilian homes to murder civilian supporters of the Confederacy.  He did not send assassins into Confederate homes on the pretext of seeking out Confederates home on leave.

Burning the family out of their home does not count? They did a lot of that.

      <<That is a good example because it is Americans vs Americans , but take your pick of any other conflict as you please , I am sure you can find a faction here and there that made an honest effort to minimise civilian suffering , but I really doubt that you can find any that really repudiated the practice of cutting the enemy off from supplys , which will of course always causes the colateral damage of reduceing the associated civilians from supplys.>>

You know, plane, we are talking about an unprecedented action here, American death squads.  I believe they originated in the Viet Nam war as the Phoenix program.  There is no precedent for this in civilized modern warfare.  We did not do this in the Second World War.  As far as I know, the fucking Japs didn't do it.  The Nazis probably did, only because they sent assassins out after their own right wing (Ernst Roehm's Sturmabteilung a.k.a. the S.A., the original Brownshirts) during the Night of the Long Knives.

If you want to pretend this is the same as blockading civilians or even bombing them, go ahead.  However I see a huge difference between terroristic assassination teams that target civilians for liquidation and the other forms of warfare you mention.  If you don't see the difference, we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

   It is worse or better than shelling whole citys? Displaceing whole populations ?  I don't see a new thing here at all.

Would you like to explain to me how the British handled the Mau Mau without useing this tactic quite a bit?

[Michael Tee]

   <<It is worse or better than shelling whole citys? >>

Obviously depends on the city.  If the city is full of Nazis you are doing them and the rest of the world a huge favour by putting them all out of their misery.

<<Displaceing whole populations ?  >>

Murder teams entering homes to assassinate targeted civilians?  OF COURSE, it's worse than displacing a whole population.  They're not even close.

<<I don't see a new thing here at all.

<<Would you like to explain to me how the British handled the Mau Mau without useing this tactic quite a bit?>>

I don't know much about that campaign, but if that's what the British did, it was a fucking atrocity which could in no way excuse the similar atrocities of the U.S. military which are going on as we speak.