If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Hi Greenhat, not seen you before, so welcome.
Actually my whole point was neatly contained within my post halfway down page 3 of this discussion, but Thanatos seemed to have concerns with my Vietnam example. All of the rest since has been trying to tease out of him one single fact or even theory that actually counters my article as he seems to believe he can.
I'm always a man who loves to learn, to gain new knowledge and to see things from as many perspectives as possible. Whilst I doubt that Thanatos and I will ever agree on any matter which could even faintly be seen as criticising America to any degree, I do hope that we can learn to respect each others view-points, and at least accept that there are multiple sides to any issue.
I'm rather hoping that he will, or someone will, make some decent criticism of my article, because then I can use those criticisms constructively to improve either this, or future articles.
I hope that stating my objectives and agenda will help you to understand my perspective a little better.
In answer to your direct points (because that is the polite thing to do - Thanatos take note):
The nature of an atrocity is something I never thought to define. I think an atrocity is that which people find atrocious, and vice versa. America and Britain have both behaved in a manner I personally find atrocious in recent campaigns.
That is why I highlighted an example from the recent history of BOTH nations. I even went easy on the US (I know how patriotic and upset many Americans become at any criticism) by choosing an older example so that if you wish, you can tell yourself that kind of act is in the past.
I have already stated that both nations have behaved in a manner that I find all-too-similar to terrorism - the deliberate targeting of civilians (power stations, telecoms, etc). Is there really so much difference between deliberately attacking a civilian telecom station and deliberately targeting another type of office buliding? I'm afraid on the grander scale I really can't see it. Can you define it? I'd really like to understand your perspective.
Please do refer back to my original post on Page 3, and you'll see that it was Thanatos who chose to focus this debate on America's "deliberate atrocities" which he seems to think are somehow something to be ignored rather than learnt from. That I dispute heartily, as I do with British atrocities.
That is why I chose to mention the bombing of civilian targets in Kosavo, by the RAF, which I believe is unacceptable behaviour for any Western nation, even you beligerant and arrogant Americans, but especially for us moderate and thoughtful Brits.
Firstly Thanatos, just as you expect me to believe that I don't know what could make you squirm, (though I'm of the opinion that a baseball bat to the testicles works on almost any man
However, the fact remains that you are still squirming away from elucidating your original contention with my article. In simple terms for you: Put up or shut up. I call, let's see if you have something other than bluff.
I would like to add that calling me challengedin the comprehension of the written word when you lack the ability to decide which words you want to use (or what they mean) is not necessarily a smart move. After all, they are your words, and if poorly chosen, it is your own comprehension of the words you choose that is in question.
That I'm better in debate with you is not my fault. I'm not about to patronise you by dumbing down - it is your choice whether to step up a level, or just resort to classroom insults and playground excuses ("please sir, I know you caught me doing wrong, but Johnny Brit did it too, and so did that Vietnamese guy").
My article stated simply that civilians had been targeted, whether incidental (in respect that the civilian building was the target), or not matters not.
Civillians were killed in the WTC, but everyone knows full well that the building was the target, not the people. Of course, the attack was timed to cause terror and cause casualties, rather than the night-time bombing of civilain targets in Kosavo. However, I assure you that the people in both were just as civillian, just as surprised and unprepared to be a target, and are just as dead.
The strangest thing really, is that you yourself, Thanatos, are the closest I've ever come to discussing this with a fundamentalist. You have almost exactly the same ideals and morals expressed here as the terrorists have.
You believe that whatever it takes to win is acceptable. That collateral damage acceptable because it is unavoidable. That if someone needs their throat ripping out, then that's what you'll do, without hesitation or remorse.
Those are the exact same feelings of the terrorists. You may as well be brothers, save that you've chosen oposing teams to play for.
How can you state your qualities proudly for yourself (and you state them over and over, ad nauseum, throught every debate) and yet despise and deride them in others? That is the riddle I can't solve. Fundamental(ist) differences perhaps?
That is not my contention. You claim that what you described as intentional atrocities are TOTALLY insignificant, unavoidable and therefore something to be ignored.
That is like saying that because rapes and murders happen in the UK, we shouldn't bother even trying to prevent or punish such actions.
Do you yet see why I oppose your view? Why I find it narrow-minded and ignorant? I don't care whether you agree with me or not, so long as you respect my right to express outrage at the idea that atrocities should be forgotten and not prevented from deliberate repetition. Once you accept that I have a point, whether you share it or not, I'll stop harrasing you over it. Until then, I'm no more likely to quit than you are.
Don't assume that because I oppose atrocities I am a coward, or one to back down from defending what I believe is right. I assure you that I am at least as aggressive and stubborn about my principles as you are. Luckily, I am wise enough to know that we'll probably never reach agreement (one of us has to be sensible) and only want you to admit my own opinion is as valid as yours (and in my view, morally superior
I am not. I do however believe that every civilian casualty is something to be mourned, as is every miliatary casualty. I do believe that deliberately targeting civilians (whether as people, or within a civilian building) is wrong.
I'm happy to accept you have the view that civillians are viable targets if the overall effect furthers military objectives (If that is your view). On those grounds, the WTC was an acceptable and clever choice of target, causing chaos in buildings right across the Western world, and bringing a huge morale boost to their own forces.
You can have it whichever way you like, but not both ways.
I am not a supporter of terrorism any more than I support and endorse the bombing of civilian targets anywhere. What I am, is a reasonable man, trying to help others see that there *are* two sides to this issue. That the terrorists don't see themselves as monsters under the circumstances, any more than the pilots who killed the civilians in Kosavo, Iran, Vietnam or any other campaign or mission do.
How about you go back through my posts and look for the points and questions raised, and then try to match them to a single direct answer you've given. I'd go back and get all the questions for you again, but that would be patronising, assuming you to be too stupid to spot a question or point for yourself.
I'd rather not make you look stupid - you don't need any help.
Of course they weren't; they're American actions, and America has a veto on the Security Council. For the UN to condemn them, there would need either to be a US government willing to pass a resolution condemning its own actions, or a 2/3 majority condemnation in the General Assembly, which is unlikely due to internal wrangling there.
But purely because the UN doesn't condemn them, doesn't mean they are not atrocities. Are you an individual, intellgent human being capable of forming his own opinions based upon evidence presented (which I had always assumed you were), or do you base your opinions entirely upon what you are told to think, by the UN or any other organisation (a lot like Thanatos and Co.)? I'm pretty certain you're the former.
I believe war crimes of all sorts are well defined under UN legislation. The sanctions clearly dont match that definition or they would be ended.
Interesting post. So, let's address it's key areas.
First, as Balddog has pointed out, atrocities are very clearly defined in International law. It is not what someone finds atrocious, because what you find atrocious and what someone from other parts of the Earth finds atrocious are not going to be the same (for example: Is the mutilation of the dead atrocious?).
Regarding your examples in your post on page 3.
From the point of view of the people at the receiving end of the bombs, the bullets, the crashing airplanes, the end result of an act of terrorism and an act of war aren't much different. They likely end up dead. But from both a legal standpoint and an expectations standpoint, there are major differences, differences you have failed to address.
Both of your examples come from countries at war. Countries where the population knew that a war was waging.
In Vietnam, many innocents died. Many died who were not so innocent as well. But this was a nation at war and that is the consequence of that, right or wrong, and has been as long as we have recorded history. Whether the dropping of napalm on that particular village is an atrocity is subject to the specific details of the situation. Details you don't address.
In Kosovo, with the RAF, once again you are talking about a nation in a state of war. A nation that knows what is coming. A nation that has been warned that these are military targets and they will be struck. Atrocity? No. Stupidity? Yes, on the part of the people who stayed at those targets.
Now, comparing these to the attacks on the World Trade Center.
Did the nation know it was at war?
Did the people have a reason to believe they were subject to attack?
Were there any warnings given?
Was the specific target the infastructure of the nation, or was it civilians associated with the target?
Was the aim of the attack to create terror?
The US and UK military don't aim to create terror. They often do because of the sheer power they bring to the arena. But that is the nature of being the toughest fighter in the arena. It scares the hell out of some.
As for your "force isn't the answer", a variety of philosophers and prophets have preached this message for thousands of years. Hasn't seemed to make a whole lot of difference in how people interact, and I don't think your message is going to add a whole lot to changing that. Nations will interact with force at times. We can either be prepared for that, accept that reality, or we can role over and play dead, soon afterwards to be dead. Go preach to India and Pakistan, see how far you get.
Not willing to admit your country's part in them?
I think that has been the most sensible, well thought out response so far, welcome to the boards Greenhat.
If the WTC attack was timed to cause casualties, as you contend, then you cannpt simultaneously contend that the people inside the Twin Towers were not targets. That's a contradiction, plain and simple.
Really? In all my discussions with Thanatos I've never got the impression that you describe: the impression I get is, "yes, collateral damage is nasty, and people get hurt, but it is a feature of conflict in the real world!" Every Western military operates on those principles, trying to minimize collateral damage -- what do you think precision-guided munitions help to do? (If you don't believe me, go talk to someone who lived in Tokyo, Dresden or Hamburg during WWII.)
And, if someone needs their throat ripping out, even I would do it without remorse. Not because I'm heartless, but because of the implications of the word 'need.'
And as for the time-honoured words "violence never solves anything" an "force is not the answer":
Tell that to the city fathers of Carthage, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Please do try to read other people's posts before responding to them :rolleyes:
This would be the post that has yours hemorrhoids all inflamed. Read it again - without your edit - the whole statement, rather than lifting it from context.
When the occaisional "atrocity" committed by a US armed forces member is compared with the daily butchering of civilians as a standard terror tactic by both the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong, then then statistical significance shrinks to nothing. Because of its abnormality, any "atrocity" committed by US armed forces were considered "newsworthy". Because the murder of non-combatants was "same old/same old", it was not considered "news".
That was what I stated, thant is what I stand by, and if the concept is beyond your comprehension, then you should re-examine your definition of "stupid".
Ignorance, eh?
I post from first hand experience. You?
Were you PERSONALLY in Vietnam, during the '60's > '70's? Rather doubtful, isn't it - unless it was in another incarnation, the use of such as "historical evidence" bringing a red herring" to the topic of discussion, and prima facie support of your delusional status. You form a perspective of supposition based upon which sources you personally choose to believe as valid; I post from personal, first hand experience. Although you place great validity in the concept of hearsay evidence, there is a reason why it is generally disqualified from evidence in courts of law.
Would seem that it is YOU who post from personal ignorance of the topic.
Have you ever been an armed combatant within a war?
That little gem would bring me to presume that you have not, or you would not be amongst the surviving to post here. You might have been one who ran or hid from the conflict, but devoid of the requisite mental, moral or emotion state necessary to actual fight in a war, personal cowardice upon your part is the only way you could have witnessed and survived to retain your perspective.
Again, I post from personal first hand experience. You? Personal ignorance.
I stated my position clearly. That you chose to edit/distort in order to press your point does not make you a better debater, nor does it prove your greater comprehension of the written word... it simply demonstrates a lack of character on your part, the willingness to lie to get to where you want to be.
Impressive, aren't you?
That would seem to imply publication. You got PAID for that? rotflmfao! Goes far to explain the frequent ignorance/delusional quality of your sycophants...
Read the original quote again. What you post is to twist my original statement, as in, a prevarication. Would seem to be what you do best.
Is not a question of whether I am "stupid", but to what extent you choose to lie and distort, fabricate. Different issues. But then, would be SOP for your ilk, wouldn't it?
Definitive ARROGANCE would be your smug belief that you choose the "rules of engagement", like every other fool who attempts to use "reason and dialogue" in a gun fight.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the writings of Darwin, because you have not the requisites necessary to survive in the real world, outside of your self-styled elitest importance.
Were it not for barbarians like me, then you would be left to defend yourself with your "oh so fine words" against the likes of bin Laden, Hitler, Pol Pot. And then, oh mighty word smith? You will die...
Please do try to think about your posts before posting utter stupidity. Or maybe you've decided that Britain is part of the Americas? After all, that is the only way you can justify your comment that "they're American actions".
I admire all of the participants powers of debate, I can see that all of you are well versed.
Unfortunately i am not as well educated, in terms of history and politics (failure of the british education system).
would one of you mind explaining to me the history leading up to the Vietnam war, and what the war was about.
much appreciated.
There are over 100 serious history books devoted to that subject and in excess of 1000 books that have discussed bits and pieces of that issue. It isn't something that is going to be addressed in any real depth on this forum.
I will attempt to give a thumbnail view of the American involvement in SE Asia without too much favoritism to one side or another. However, that is a very difficult thing to do, and not all readers may agree that my account is non-partisan.
Prior to WWII, Vietnam was part of a French colony called Indo-China. There were some efforts to free Vietnam, Laos, and Campuchea from the influence of the French, and most of those efforts were by young nationalists who studied in Europe, many being influenced by the writings of the American revolutionaries, the French revolutionaries, Karl Marx, and the Russian revolutionaries (consider what they desired and you can see why those influences would appeal to them).
During WWII, at least one of those revolutionaries, Ho Chi Minh, fought on the side of the Allies (as part of the OSS) against the Japanese.
Following the war, the French returned to reoccupy their colony. Ho Chi Minh appealed for US aid to avert this, but although he had some support, it wasn't enough. For the late 40s and early 50s, a communist insurgency fought the French in Vietnam (Vietminh) and Laos. After the defeat of French forces at Dien Bien Phu, the French signed a peace treaty which established North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The treaty called for a series of actions, including the opportunity to try each governmental system established, to be followed by peaceful elections to reunite the country.
The established government in the south was a democracy (by Asian standards of the time) and the North was communist. Under Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, the support of the South was clearly established, with one of the major tenants being "the Domino Theory" that South Vietnam was the key to avoiding the fall of all of SE Asia to communism. For a variety of reasons, the actions called for in the treaty did not occur, and the war of insurgency never stopped in the South. As the warfare in the South increased, the US stepped up support to South Vietnam, with military aid, economic assistance, training of engineers, medical personnel, etc. Eventually advisors were deployed to Vietnam and later troops (starting with the Marines). From 1964 to 1973, American troops were involved in the war in Vietnam to a varying extent. So were troops from Australia (occassionally including "seconded" Brits), New Zealand, South Korea, and Thailand.
The various SEATO allies were successful in maintaining South Vietnam as an independent entity and in defeating a number of major offenses by the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, including both Tet Offensives, the attack on Khe Sanh, and the 1972 offensive. In 1973, the North Vietnamese agreed to a peace and signed the Paris Peace Accords. In 1975 they broke that agreement and rolled a large conventional Army over the border and overwhelmed the forces of South Vietnam. As an aside, the US and the SEATO allies also broke the treaty they had signed when they failed to go to the assistance of South Vietnam in order to defeat the invasion.
Okay, we have a contention here. You ae using the legal definition of atrocity, while I'm using the lingual (dictionary) definition.
I'm happy to concede that it may not be a legal atrocity if you are prepared to concede that it may be an atrocity in the common use of the word.
After all, I'm discussing morality - and when was that ever defined coherently by the legal system?
Of course the civillians were not warned that the ordinary civillian power stations were now regarded as millitary targets. Nor were the clerical and other workers in telecomunications buildings aware that such counted as legitimate millitary targets. We (both Britain and America) were at war - would anyone at BT, Western Bell, PowerGen etc have been aware that they were now classed as legitimate targets should a Kosovan bomber happen to be able to reach them? No.
Government buildings get stood on alert at times of crisis, (I have worked in Security for Government departments in my past), but power stations? Telecom's buildings? Any building with a mobile-phone antennae on the roof perhaps? No. Never.
The terrorist organisations declared war on America (A holy war if we are to be fully correct) long ago. That America (and the rest of the world) refuse to accept the legitimacy of the declaration (whether they have the right to declare war) is something beyond the terrorists control. Osama Bin Laden was certainly known to have clearly expressed his intention to attack America - it was therefore an open declaration of hostilities.
The people in the WTC? No more than the night-cleaners in the power stations or telecoms buildings did. That counts both ways.
Yes. The CIA and FBI admit that they had received warnings, but failed to pass them on. I'm sure that if the President would like to give all terrorist organisations his mobile phone number, they'll try to skip the middle men next time.
There are many buildings with a far higher concentration of civillians in them than the WTC. Since the other targets included the Pentagon and Government buildings, I'd say that the prime motive was to target infrastructure in the attack as a whole.
That neither of us can realistically do anything more than have a blind guess at. The only man who knew what was really in his mind is long gone.
I would imagine that he did intend to cause terror. Attacks to cause loss of morale are well established tactic unfortunately. Tell me, was Hiroshima designed to cause such horrific devastation that Japan would surrender in terror, or was there some more specific millitary tactic to killing millions of civillians with the first A bomb?
Perhaps you can clear up these things for me, because I'm serious in my answers. I really can't see that much difference between the tactics of modern warfare and the terorist attack on America. Strategically, I have to say that the attack(s) were simply brilliant. The terrorists got inside the guard of the most powerful nation on earth and caused tremendous damage.
It is on moral grounds that I object, and in good conscience, I can't protest the actions of the terrorists without likewise pleading against tactics that seem to me too similar. I'm just not hypocritical enough for that. If it is wrong to attack civilian buildings where workers would not perceive themselves being a target, then it has to be a universal rule.
I'm not actually a pacifist. That is merely another false assumption by Thanatos. I practice martial arts, and come from a family with a long history of millitary service. I'm a keen marksman, a swordsman (my name comes from my days of swinging genuine swords in medieval combat displays), and have on many occassions been cited for bravery in assisting others (including several times involving armed opponents).
I'm not a pacifist. I'm just not a murderer. If you threaten me, my children, or those weaker than I that deserve my protection then I will oppose you, to the death if necessary.
What I won't do is bomb your neighbours, friends, the people who provide you telephone line, your power supplier, your local gun-store, or other innocent, non-combatant parties just because I oppose *you*.
That, sir, would be the act of the criminal or the terrorist.
Well, then you have a problem, since various people throughout the world use different morality standards and different concepts of right and wrong. Do you think you have the right to dictate to them outside of a legal code? What you consider an atrocity may very well be considered normal behaviour in Cambodia.
Actually, they were warned. Broadcasts on radio, TV and airdropped leaflets all were efforts to warn them that those sites were considered military targets. There are a number of reports of the civilians chosing to stay in the targets even when they knew they would be targeted.
Please find me a record of that formal declaration of war and its delivery to an appropriate member of the United States Government.
You're making assumptions. Those assumptions are wrong.
Not warnings. That is the media putting their own spin on the issue. What the Intelligence services had were indications. There is a difference.
You ever been in the World Trade Center? Or even in New York City? Kindly identify any building with more civilians in it than the WTC.
And could you explain what infrastructure is housed in the WTC? Two aircraft targeted that one target. If we are to believe that the infrastructure was the target, that target must have housed a significant component to the infrastructure. Of course, as it happens, the WTC didn't house any key infrastructure.
If the intent of dropping the Atomic bombs in WWII had been terror, there are significantly better targets than Hiroshima or Nagasaki (both well-established military targets). I suggest a little research into the procedure used to choose the targets. It is all in the public record.
I suggest spending some time in the Armed Forces. There are things that are best learned from experience. As for the attacks being brilliant, I would suggest that the attacks showed a complete failure to know the people who they chose to attack and how those people would react to such an attack (as has been demonstrated in US history multiple times). Rather than brilliant, they were extremely stupid and the step most likely to destroy the terrorists aims, goals and very existence.
However, you want a universal rule? We have worldwide rules. They are listed as the articles of the Geneva convention and the Law of Land Warfare. They are the rules that the majority of the world has agreed to. A little research into the nature of those rules, the specific details of those rules and the actual facts behind incidents that you clearly don't have all the data for would go a long way in helping you see what the differences are.
As far as i can see war is about gaining a strategic advantage over your opponent in order to achieve your objectives (is this not the same in a 'holy war'?). Was the WTC incident just revenge tactics deployed by somone with a grudge?
By attacking the WTC i cannot see how any advantage is achieved. Osma Bin Larden(sp) has provoked war and gained nothing for his efforts.
The whole point of the WTC was to make a sort of sick statement. That the terrorists can strike anywhere, at anytime, even the most powerful country on Earth and effectively get away with it. Al-Qaeda is still with us, they're just hiding for now. They'll do something soon, without a doubt.
Regardless of what the Germans believed, it is not just the US Marines who are "the hounds of hell"... just ask anyone who has been the recipient of attention of the US military.
As Greenhat said, ask the Vietnamese... where popular fiction would have you believe that the US was "beaten". (and before you point to Somalia, there is a difference between US military, and chickenshit politicians. How many Somalies did it require to "defeat" those Rangers? How many of them did not come home?
bin Laden wrote a check that he cannot cash, and collection proceedings have been initiated. It will be resolved.
The usual "down with the Great Satan" stuff. Death to America, the spread of Islam. Trigger: presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden's homeland.
I would agree that this is the popular notion of the goals by most of the members of Islam and the terrorist organizations. I'm not sure it is the actual goal of the leaders of those countries and organizations. Regardless, the attack on the WTC was not a smart move in trying to reach those objectives. American troops have been in Saudi Arabia for over ten years, not much of a trigger. And the "down with the Great Satan" stuff was going on over 20 years ago. It isn't related to our support for Israel. It's just for being the most visible of "infidels" and an easy focus to keep the 'subjects' of Islamic rule focused on something other than their leaders.
Didn't you earlier identify Tet 68 as a victory for the VietCong? Their losses at Firebase Eagle alone exceeded 3000, with only a handful of Americans killed.
Make up your mind.
A complementary explanation.
Nope... After Mackenzie Calhoun, fictional character and generally admirable pain-in-the-ass. Hence the "Ol' Purple Eyes" part.
The avatar? Now that's a whole other story...
They knew that consequences would follow, so what did they gain by it all? People are now more cautious doing different acts, but not fools...
For the people who actually committed the acts (and continue to), I doubt that they think ahead to what will be accomplished, or what they will achieve.
For the leaders, I think they expected to continue to keep their subjects attention on America, and by doing so to strengthen their control of those subjects. What has happened in the war coming to them, up close and personal, is not what they expected.