Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:
WTF is mintpressnews?

No idea at all. So some brief research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mint_Press_News

But it covers other things such as:
The government cutting off peoples water because they cannot pay bills
Black and hispanic students being treated worse than white students
What does it take to work for the NSA

A quick glance gives a anti-government view of it with a focus based heavily on human rights.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
As soon as we hear a compelling argument for why terrorists deserve the same legal rights as people who aren't terrorists.

Wait, you actually are serious about this? You weren't just trolling when you made that first post?

"Terrorists" deserve the same legal rights because of this little thing called innocent until proven guilty. You don't just get to declare that someone is a "terrorist" and take away all of their rights, you provide a compelling case in court (and if they're as obviously guilty as you seem to think you should have no problems convincing a jury) and then you punish them appropriately. I really don't see how this is so hard to understand.

I see your confusion here. You are arguing that the standards for defining a terrorist need to be stricter. That's OK.

I'm just saying what should be done once someone is confirmed to be a terrorist. You actually should have a problem with the ''conviction'' process, not the punishment.

Fine, have a trial to convict them of being a terrorist. After any present danger is passed. If they're innocent, set them free. If guilty, lock em up.

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

The British got quite good at it too

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

The British got quite good at it too

I agree (especially so in Northern Ireland), the UK is also unequivocally complicit in torture carried out by the US as well. I fail to see your point though, there isn't a Brit arguing that terrorists, and the sponsors of terrorists, should have all rights taken away and be held indefinitely without charge.

 dæl wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 dæl wrote:
Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often.

The British got quite good at it too

I agree (especially so in Northern Ireland), the UK is also unequivocally complicit in torture carried out by the US as well. I fail to see your point though, there isn't a Brit arguing that terrorists, and the sponsors of terrorists, should have all rights taken away and be held indefinitely without charge.

Just pointing out the irony of someone sitting in what was once a beautiful glass house, that is now little more than a metal frame because of stones being projected at velocity

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Just pointing out the irony of someone sitting in what was once a beautiful glass house, that is now little more than a metal frame because of stones being projected at velocity

Which is exactly what I was trying to point out when someone claims that those who support terrorists deserve no legal rights, whilst being a US taxpayer meaning they support terrorists financially.

Also, I make no claims of living in a glass house, my nation's foreign policy is just as deplorable and were it up to me the International Criminal Court would have a lot more cases to hear from both sides of the pond.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Naw... if the US and A says you are a terrorist then you are one, they don't even need evidence or fair trials or habeas corpus.

Frankly, Terrorists don't and shouldn't deserve trials. Nor should habeas corpus apply. They don't even deserve the dignity of being classified as Prisoners of War, that would imply they have legitimacy as combatants.

Of course Terrorists don't fit neatly into any other classification. So we should make one for them. A category with zero rights whatsoever, as befits their crimes against humanity. Any rights they may have had as a citizen of any respective nation or as a human being should be revoked for the duration they are detained.

And anyone who willingly collaborates with a terrorist should also be classified as a terrorist.

You serious?

Its fact

IED goes off in the bazaar..
We go after the Insurgents (Terrorists)
We go after those that fund the operation
We go after those that brought the material in
All lumped in together under "Terrorist"

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Terrorists target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear

So do Soldiers.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So do Soldiers.

Is it National Talk Out Of Your Ass Day or something?

I really hope he was making a specific reply to a certain soldier from Ft Lewis that did the killing spree and not label everyone in the US Military specifically targeted civilians

 Seaward wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So do Soldiers.

Is it National Talk Out Of Your Ass Day or something?

Soldiers have never bombed civilian targets?

I'm being rhetorical, of course they have.

 Jihadin wrote:
I really hope he was making a specific reply to a certain soldier from Ft Lewis that did the killing spree and not label everyone in the US Military specifically targeted civilians

Blames bergdahl for indirect consequences of his actions.
Denies U.S military for it's direct consequences of it's actions.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Soldiers have never bombed civilian targets?

I'm being rhetorical, of course they have.

And your contention is that soldiers do this to sow terror and rule through fear?

This'll be fun. Could you provide some examples?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Soldiers have never bombed civilian targets?

I'm being rhetorical, of course they have.

Yeah. And sometimes they did it intentionally. Difference is the war effort was never one focused on killing civilians to the exclusion of legitimate military targets, or ones where attacking legitimate military targets necessitated attacks against civilians (the allied Strategic bombing Campaign in WWII).

The US military has rarely attacked civilians for the hell of it. That's why they get so much attention when they do happen.

Jebus. Britain your very bad for bombing the civilian population during the night
Jebus. USA is bad for bombing the civilian population during the day
Jebus. Germany is bad for bombing the civilian population day and night

Edit

Ninja by Lord


Edit

I bet the van from Iraq going to get posted

 Seaward wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Soldiers have never bombed civilian targets?

I'm being rhetorical, of course they have.

And your contention is that soldiers do this to sow terror and rule through fear?

This'll be fun. Could you provide some examples?

My contention is that soldiers blow up civilian targets when it benefits them to do so- whether that goal is "to sow terror" or "to win a war" is arbitrary nonsense people tell themselves so the actions of their Country don't keep them up at night.

This will be fun indeed. Your retort?

@Lord: The ~7000 US casualties sustained during the War on Terror implies that the Insurgents certainly don't mind targeting enemy combatants.

For the life of me I cannot think of any time I've blown up civilian targets on purpose or my troops for that matter

 BlaxicanX wrote:


@Lord: The ~7000 US casualties sustained during the War on Terror implies that the Insurgents certainly don't mind targeting enemy combatants.

Twice as many civilians were killed by insurgents. 80-95% of people killed by the other side were civilians (EDIT: COrrection. This statistic is based on total civilians killed in Afghanistan, not the number of people killed by insurgents in Afghanistan). Turns out the US militaries ratio (while appalling for a war of its scale) is much more favorable towards killing people with guns and bombs.

They'll fight US troops when US troops come to fight them, and occasionally they shoot mortars into our bases, but they prefer blowing up public streets, markets, cars, and other places that are not likely to yield any military casualties.* I understand from your above post that you think the little nuance isn't important, but your refusal to recognize that has no bearing on the reality that it exists.

Of course they don't manfight US troops; they're scumbag terrorists with none of the advantages of a highly funded, well trained military like the one the US possesses.

However, your assertion was that soldiers targeting civilians is less silly than when terrorists do it because terrorists focus on civilian targets *to the exclusion* of military ones. That's not true; insurgents target military personnel when they think they have a chance of winning; not dissimilar to the United States bombing Japanese cities because they felt that invading Japan would be too costly in lives and effort, or the United States bombing Vietnamese cities and killing 70,000 civilians because they figured flooding the North with troops would be a bad idea.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
My contention is that soldiers blow up civilian targets when it benefits them to do so- whether that goal is "to sow terror" or "to win a war" is arbitrary nonsense people tell themselves so the actions of their Country don't keep them up at night.

This will be fun indeed. Your retort?

My retort's pretty simple:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Because Terrorists target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear

So do Soldiers.

You claimed that soldiers target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear. You've realized you can't actually back that statement up with modern examples, so you're trying to back away from it. Which is smart, but it would have been far smarter to actually think it through before you went all glib.

Because, of course, the US military doesn't target civilian populations. Civilians do tend to get killed in warzones, as has been the case since warzones came about, but we go out of our way to keep the number as low as possible. The other guys? They go out of their way to make that number as high as possible. You can take your apologist nonsense elsewhere.

 Seaward wrote:
You claimed that soldiers target civilian populations to sow terror and rule through fear. You've realized you can't actually back that statement up with modern examples, so you're trying to back away from it. Which is smart, but it would have been far smarter to actually think it through before you went all glib.

Okay, I was wrong to have not clipped off those last 6 words in my quote. Thanks for calling me out on that, bro. You really got me.

Because, of course, the US military doesn't target civilian populations. Civilians do tend to get killed in warzones, as has been the case since warzones came about, but we go out of our way to keep the number as low as possible.

Yeah, that's crap. When you deliberately target a civilian area you're targeting civilians. That it's "for the war effort" is arbitrary nonsense people tell themselves so the actions of their Country don't keep them awake at night.

Trying to paint me as an "apologist" is cute. I don't condone terrorism; I don't condone any sort of deliberate attack on civilians. I'm just objective enough to realize that if deliberately killing civilians is enough to put you in special hell, terrorists aren't going to be alone in it.

Good ratio of engagement happen in built areas right?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Fine, have a trial to convict them of being a terrorist. After any present danger is passed. If they're innocent, set them free. If guilty, lock em up.

So if your "terrorist" is granted full legal rights before and during their trial, and then punished like any other criminal (complete with rights to appeal, etc, since those are inherent parts of "innocent until proven guilty") then what exactly is the difference between a "terrorist" and anyone else?

 Peregrine wrote:
So if your "terrorist" is granted full legal rights before and during their trial, and then punished like any other criminal (complete with rights to appeal, etc, since those are inherent parts of "innocent until proven guilty") then what exactly is the difference between a "terrorist" and anyone else?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
However, your assertion was that soldiers targeting civilians is less silly than when terrorists do it because terrorists focus on civilian targets *to the exclusion* of military ones.

I made no such claim that a soldier targeting civilians was less so than that of terrorists (if anything I find it more so). I made the claim that a distinct difference can be drawn between a military force that restricts its attacks against civilians and a terrorist whose primary course of action is to attack civilians.

Given that terrorists have killed far more civilians in the current conflict by orders of magnitude when compared to the US military, this distinction is rightly sound. Right sound before even mentioning the placement of explosives in locations where only civilians will be killed. Civilians whose deaths have no bearing on the conflict's outcome.

not dissimilar to the United States bombing Japanese cities because they felt that invading Japan would be too costly in lives and effort,

Ever heard of the concept of Total War? It's not really comparable to the war on terror.

or the United States bombing Vietnamese cities and killing 70,000 civilians because they figured flooding the North with troops would be a bad idea.

The deaths of civilians in Vietnam has long been criticized, and no one in this thread ever claims the US military never killed civilians or even that they were never targeted. Quite the opposite. EDIT: "You did bad stuff too" is a crap excuse for conducting ones self in a way that only results in 'bad stuff.'

I think you're right that there is indeed a distinction, but like I said, it's an arbitrary one. That the US military goes through great lengths to pick enemy soldiers as its preferred target over civilians does not change or excuse the fact that the US military has no compulsion with unleashing hell on civilian locations if it deems doing so as necessary, as history has shown. To that end,

if deliberately killing civilians is enough to put you in special hell, terrorists aren't going to be alone in it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Okay, I was wrong to have not clipped off those last 6 words in my quote. Thanks for calling me out on that, bro. You really got me.

I'll apologize if requesting that you say what you actually mean instead of demanding that we try to make some sense from your wild claims is asking too much.

Yeah, that's crap. When you deliberately target a civilian area you're targeting civilians. That it's "for the war effort" is arbitrary nonsense people tell themselves so the actions of their Country don't keep them awake at night.

Why do you keep capitalizing country, out of curiosity?

And no, there's actually a difference. I can tell you've spent far more time both studying and actually at war than I, so I'll do my best to make this quick: trying to minimize civilian casualties is different from trying to maximize civilian casualties. If one side is trying to minimize civilian casualties and one side is trying to maximize civilian casualties, it takes a really special sort of person to claim they're both actually trying to maximize civilian casualties.

Trying to paint me as an "apologist" is cute.

I think it's more unfortunate that I didn't have to try very hard.

I don't condone terrorism; I don't condone any sort of deliberate attack on civilians. I'm just objective enough to realize that if deliberately killing civilians is enough to put you in special hell, terrorists aren't going to be alone in it.

Well, rest easy, little buddy. We haven't deliberately gone after civilians for quite some time.

 dæl wrote:
Which is exactly what I was trying to point out when someone claims that those who support terrorists deserve no legal rights, whilst being a US taxpayer meaning they support terrorists financially.

Also, I make no claims of living in a glass house, my nation's foreign policy is just as deplorable and were it up to me the International Criminal Court would have a lot more cases to hear from both sides of the pond.

That's very even handed of you. Your initial "Yeah, I mean its not like you'd ever see the US using state sponsored terrorism to further its own interests. Oh, they do, and actually rather often." seemed to conceal your actual feelings on the topic (i.e. that a lot of countries use less than palatable methods to further their own interests)

 Seaward wrote:
Why do you keep capitalizing country, out of curiosity?

For the same reason I smell my socks before I put them on. Why do you look up before getting in the shower every morning?

And no, there's actually a difference.

I know there's a distinction. I've said as such multiple times in this discussion, in fact. That distinction is meaningless within the context of this discussion, however. Again, that the US military goes through great lengths to pick enemy soldiers as its preferred target over civilians does not change or excuse the fact that the US military has no compulsion with unleashing hell on civilian locations if it deems doing so as necessary, as history has shown. So holding some kind of special hatred for one group of people for targeting blowing up civilians is dumb. I'm glad you've fallen back from the hardline stance of "the US doesn't deliberately target civilians" to "the US doesn't deliberately target civilians often", though.