Utter, utter, utter cunts.

[colubridae]

whether "actively targeting" are "passively targeting" makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off. As for what is more "evil", kind of a useless term. Both are equally shameful and wrong.

This is my point. Once you make this statement you are saying that any culpability is unimportant in your view.

All that is important is the violent trauma deaths. Fair enough.

Yet when I point out the enormous horror of road deaths (15,000 per day) you are totally unconcerned. You can even make a sarcastic joke!

This means your statement

makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off

is purely for effect.

Using these deaths for such a dishonest purpose is loathsome.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito ergo sum, well, there you have it. There was nothing legitimate about the invasion of Afghanistan.

There was everything legitimate about it. The US was attacked from there, and the Taliban government harbored the attackers.

I guess thats the sticking point here, obviously. As for colubridae, everyone has a political agenda. Don't act all surprised about it, you do to. Again with the traffic

I'm not sure what your argument is to suggest that Afghanistan was not a legitimate adversary.

Heck, based on your other opinions, I can't imagine why you would have thought the US should legitimately have been part of the war against Germany in WW2.

[JimC]

The point is that some things are worse than others, and unintended civilian casualties in a war are not as evil as someone, with premeditation and deliberation, intending to do it, puts a rope around a 7 year old boy's neck and hangs him. It's a question of the mens rea there.

There are no "unintended" casualties in a war of choice (ie. an unprovoked invasion/occupation). When you drop bombs on people, people die. Nothing unintended about it. It is premeditated, planned and carried out. Unlike driving a car

To me, it would strongly depend on how it was carried out. If the military planners of an operation make a great effort to avoid civilian casualities as far as possible, and yet some still die, that is at a lower level than planning and carrying out such operations without worrying too much about "collateral damage".

Not always easy to assess, I suppose.

[sandinista]

whether "actively targeting" are "passively targeting" makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off. As for what is more "evil", kind of a useless term. Both are equally shameful and wrong.

This is my point. Once you make this statement you are saying that any culpability is unimportant in your view.

All that is important is the violent trauma deaths. Fair enough.

Yet when I point out the enormous horror of road deaths (15,000 per day) you are totally unconcerned. You can even make a sarcastic joke!

This means your statement

makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off

is purely for effect.

Using these deaths for such a dishonest purpose is loathsome.

Perhaps if you worte the whole quote instead of taking it out of context, what I said was, "whether "actively targeting" are "passively targeting" makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off." Seems your missing a part. What I said was, it doesn't matter to kids who are bombed if they were an "active" target for a bomb (something that is made with the sole intent to kill, unlike a car) or a "passive" target.

There was everything legitimate about it. The US was attacked from there, and the Taliban government harbored the attackers.

So it would be legitimate for Cuba to attack the US? Besides that, are you saying their was one solution. To invade and occupy for over 10 years?

[Coito ergo sum]

So it would be legitimate for Cuba to attack the US? Besides that, are you saying their was one solution. To invade and occupy for over 10 years?

If they were attacked and we harbored their attackers, yes.

No, I didn't say there was one solution. There were many solutions. We could have, for example, done nothing at all, and ignored the whole thing. That would have been one solution. We could have begged them for forgiveness for our past sins, that would have been another. We could have agreed to change the US to a Muslim/Sha'ria based country and subjected ourselves to Sha'ria law, that's another solution. We could have had the UN issue bulletins and letters "discussing" the issue, and that would have been another solution. We might have sent delegations over there for years to try to negotiate a surrender or a settlement. A myriad solutions could be envisioned. Some of the solutions you might think are not good, others you might think are better. That doesn't change the fact that going to war and attacking one's attackers, and unintentionally killing civilians, is not as bad as purposefully stringing up 7 year olds as spies.

[sandinista]

Now your really grasping at straws.

[Coito ergo sum]

Now your really grasping at straws.

How so?

Let me ask you this, was the US justified in going to war against Germany in World War 2? If so, why?

And, why wasn't the US justified in going to war against Afghanistan?

[floppit]

Now your really grasping at straws.

How so?

Let me ask you this, was the US justified in going to war against Germany in World War 2? If so, why?

And, why wasn't the US justified in going to war against Afghanistan?

In terms of legality of war one needs to be careful comparing pre UN with post UN and the Declaration of Human Rights - just saying....

[Coito ergo sum]

Now your really grasping at straws.

How so?

Let me ask you this, was the US justified in going to war against Germany in World War 2? If so, why?

And, why wasn't the US justified in going to war against Afghanistan?

In terms of legality of war one needs to be careful comparing pre UN with post UN and the Declaration of Human Rights - just saying....

Sooooo....why wasn't the US justified in going to war against Afghanistan?

[colubridae]

Perhaps if you worte the whole quote instead of taking it out of context, what I said was, "whether "actively targeting" are "passively targeting" makes not a whiff of a difference to those kids having their body parts blown off." Seems your missing a part. What I said was, it doesn't matter to kids who are bombed if they were an "active" target for a bomb (something that is made with the sole intent to kill, unlike a car) or a "passive" target.

I.e. you don't give a toss about children killed in car incidents.

Your only concern is children killed in war scenarios.

To which I reply again you have a political agenda not a humanitarian one.

This is my whole point.
You are cynically using these ‘collateral’ deaths to suit your own political agenda. If you really were viewing things from a humanitarian POV you would be more concerned about the road death stats. But these give you no concern.

You can’t have it both ways. If your flag is humanitarian, where is your outrage over 15,000 child-road deaths per day? It should easily overshadow your concern for collateral deaths, but it doesn’t. You scream collateral deaths are horror but ignore an even greater horror, which makes the war deaths a drop in the ocean. You even tried to make a joke about it at my expense.

This is cynical hypocrisy. And using dead children for such purposes is despicable.

Make ten thousand posts condemning motor transport. Then I will accept your one post concerning collateral deaths as genuine.


You didn’t like me short-quoting you. Ok here is your full quote plus the bit you cynically missed in red!

it doesn't matter to kids who are bombed if they were an "active" target for a bomb (something that is made with the sole intent to kill, unlike a car) or a "passive" target or by a car carelessly driven by a thoughtless motorist. They are just as brutally destroyed”.

[sandinista]

so first you quote me out of context, now you add words and contribute them to me?

As for whether or not the US was "justified" in attacking and occupying Afghanistan, I suppose that depends on how you define "justified". Its a loaded term. You can argue with people who murder abortion doctors who are convinced that they are "justified". In my opinion neither bombing Afghanistan nor murdering abortion doctors is justified.

[colubridae]

so first you quote me out of context, now you add words and contribute them to me?

As for whether or not the US was "justified" in attacking and occupying Afghanistan, I suppose that depends on how you define "justified". Its a loaded term. You can argue with people who murder abortion doctors who are convinced that they are "justified". In my opinion neither bombing Afghanistan nor murdering abortion doctors is justified.

Contribute/attribute . I clearly did neither.
Nor did I quote you out of context. That is a falsehood.
I took the relevant part of you quote.

I stated quite clearly that I was adding what you cynically failed to say.
If you have a valid defence for your appalling manipulation of these deaths to suit your politics, make it. Stop making faslehoods.

I am not concerned at the moment with your points about afhganistan. I am talking about your loathsome use of childrens deaths for your cynical hypocrisy.

Stop spouting falsehoods. Are you incorrectly impling that I support murdering abortion doctors.

Your vile attempts to provoke a reaction are in keeping with your non-humanitarian statements.

[Coito ergo sum]

As for whether or not the US was "justified" in attacking and occupying Afghanistan, I suppose that depends on how you define "justified".

How do you define it?

Its a loaded term.

No, it's not.

You can argue with people who murder abortion doctors who are convinced that they are "justified".

That's right. Do you think they're justified in doing so? Do you think the US was justified in attacking Afghanistan?

In my opinion neither bombing Afghanistan nor murdering abortion doctors is justified.

Why wasn't attacking afghanistan justified?

What should have been done instead?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Would hijacking this thread be justified? What if I offered cheese?

[colubridae]

avast and belay.

I hate getting serious. It serves so litte porpoise