US Drops a Bomb Every 12 Minutes on Someone ~ 24/7/365

[VCheng]

Ahaan
As you say.

Not just me:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07430170120041802

 

[Arsalan]

Not just me:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07430170120041802

View attachment 502402

There is first time for everything.
So, then we can come back to point. What do you think of those bombings? morally unjustified? politically or policy wise just that, political and policy? PLEASE don't say yes as i may lose my faith in progressive moderate societies!

 

[VCheng]

There is first time for everything.
So, then we can come back to point. What do you think of those bombings? morally unjustified? politically or policy wise just that, political and policy? PLEASE don't say yes as i may lose my faith in progressive moderate societies!

"Those" bombings - meaning which ones in particular? Are some bombings justified and some others are not?

 

[Arsalan]

"Those" bombings - meaning which ones in particular? Are some bombings justified and some others are not?

Nops, none of them is!! That is why i will always be against them all.
Now try saying it,,, NO THEY ARE NOT JUSTIFIED!!

 

[VCheng]

Nops, none of them is!! That is why i will always be against them all.
Now try saying it,,, NO THEY ARE NOT JUSTIFIED!!

I already expressed it:

Disapproval of bombing is fine on a moral level, but it is merely policy by other means according to international geopolitics. One must understand the difference.

On a personal level, I abhor violence of all kinds, including bombing, unequivocally.

 

[Psychic]

Then tell the militants to dress like soldiers. Then there would be no problems of discrimination.

Are combat fatigues detectable from 30,000 feet or whatever altitudes bombs are dropped from?
Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I am unaware of that.
What I am aware of is the fact that an armed person can be identified from drone feed.

I think the Geneva Convention said something about that

.

" ...civilians taking up arms and fighting as irregulars are as old as war itself. It was the use of guerrilla combat during the Second World War by resistance movements against an occupying force which led to the introduction of a special Article when the Geneva Conventions were revised in 1949. This provision recognizes the status of war prisoner for members of "resistance" movements fulfilling the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
If these four conditions are present, the guerilla is entitled to the same treatment from his captors as the regular soldier. During the Second World War, General Eisenhower sent a proclamation to Nazis and Frenchmen alike, formally recognizing the French resistance Maquis as members of the Allied Forces and warned the Germans that all guerillas were to be given the same honorable treatment as the regular soldiers under him in the Allied Expeditionary Force.
A further condition imposed by Article 4 is that these movements must belong to one of the Parties to the conflict... "

Please elaborate if the bolded text (in the above quote) is contradictory or not?

Because as far as I am aware, many members of Maquis dressed in civil. On top of that, they were also involved in sabotage activities in which they did not carry arms openly in violation of (c).

There are cases when militants don't have access to uniforms. Some militants were and some of them still are supported by your country---Groups in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan who were supported by the US didn't don combat uniforms.

Then there would be no problems of discrimination

It is not about the conventions or rules of war which can be twisted and misinterpreted to one's own benefit. It is about getting the job done, at whatever the cost. Afterall, who is going to lose sleep over a few thousand dead foreign civilians.
Complete destruction of a city of hundreds of thousands of people just because there were five thousand or so ISIS in it was justified by saying that "hey at least we got rid of ISIS".
Deaths of the civilians of other side is nothing more than a statistic. A war crime, yes (which cannot be justified by saying that millitants hide among civillians) but who cares. Might is right.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...-devastated-after-us-led-war-of-annihilation/

 

[gambit]

Are combat fatigues detectable from 30,000 feet or whatever altitudes bombs are dropped from?

But they are identifiable by observers on the ground who can direct those bombers.

Looky here...I know what you are trying to do, but it ain't gonna work. What you are demanding from US is perfection while making excuses for the other side. You are intelligent enough to know that if the other side has even %50 obedience to the commonly accepted rules of warfare, they would stand NO CHANCE against US. That is not a boast from this American but a fact.

Put on a uniform and see how quickly you die.

 

[Arsalan]

I already expressed it:



On a personal level, I abhor violence of all kinds, including bombing, unequivocally.

Glad that at least on a personal level you are against it.

 

[VCheng]

Glad that at least on a personal level you are against it.

Whatever made you even suspect otherwise!

Violence, in all its myriad forms, is totally abhorrent to me.

 

[Psychic]

But they are identifiable by observers on the ground who can direct those bombers.

Who was the "ground observer" in this particular case?
As far as I know, the city was besieged and then bombed into "submission" before the Kurdish groups(good terrorists) went in.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/n...-devastated-after-us-led-war-of-annihilation/

The Coalition’s claims that its precision air campaign allowed it to bomb IS out of Raqqa while causing very few civilian casualties do not stand up to scrutiny. On the ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything we’ve seen in decades of covering the impact of wars.

“A senior US military official said that more artillery shells were launched into Raqqa than anywhere since the Viet Nam war. Given that artillery shells have margin of error of over 100 metres, it is no surprise that the result was mass civilian casualties,” said Donatella Rovera.

“Those who stayed died and those who tried to run away died. We couldn’t afford to pay the smugglers; we were trapped.” She and her children eventually managed to escape through a minefield “by walking over the blood of those who were blown up as they tried to flee ahead of us.”

I know what you are trying to do, but it ain't gonna work. What you are demanding from US is perfection while making excuses for the other side.

What am I trying to do? Demanding perfection?
I am not demanding perfection.
Collateral damage can be justified if a nation's survival is at stake.
Collateral damage can be reasonably understood if not justified when fighting irregular groups in urban areas.
However, one doesn't have to use a sledgehammer(unnecessary force) to kill a flea. For instance, take the case of Raqqa, were the lives of Kurdish fighters who are considered by your Turkish friends as terrorists, appeared to be more valuable than Raqqan civilians to the Americans? On top of that, the civilians trapped in weren't allowed to flee as the outskirts of the city were mined.

The big question is, should a few soldiers be sacrificed to save thousands of civilians? OR should thousands of civilians be sacrificed to save a few soldiers? America's survival wasn't at stake, even US ground troops were not in the line of fire...

Then there is a big difference between collateral damage and a deliberate campaign of annihilation.
Or deliberate targeting of civilians like this one below;
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/world/asia/afghanistan-taliban-kunduz.html
The strikes like these ones have actually created more support for groups like Taliban, so here goes "getting the job done" justification.

that if the other side has even %50 obedience to the commonly accepted rules of warfare, they would stand NO CHANCE against US.

So you agree that the US is not obeying the rules of warfare 100%?
That also means that the Nazis were justified in their actions against partisans and resistance fighters ? And that these groups were not operating in line with the rules of warfare.
Then why did your general gave that statement;
"During the Second World War, General Eisenhower sent a proclamation to Nazis and Frenchmen alike, formally recognizing the French resistance Maquis as members of the Allied Forces and warned the Germans that all guerillas were to be given the same honorable treatment as the regular soldiers under him in the Allied Expeditionary Force. "

Your statement implies that Bashar Al Assad had the right to bomb his own people---an action which was and still is being condemned by your govt. (They still condemned Ghouta bombings carried out by Assad and Russians while they themselves were bombing Raqqa during the same period)?
Or that Saddam had the right to gas the Kurdish villages during Iran-Iraq war? Since the Kurds didn't don military uniforms and lodged at civilian villages?
Oh I forgot, Saddam was your guy back then.

Politics is indeed quite complex and hypocritical in nature.
National interest and state policies have nothing to do with rules of warfare. States employ intel agencies, special forces and even armies to do the same which these non-uniformed groups do---and at a much larger scale.

Put on a uniform and see how quickly you die.

Your people when they are/were in similar situations (e.g France WW2) always wore uniforms?

 

[Arsalan]

Whatever made you even suspect otherwise!

Violence, in all its myriad forms, is totally abhorrent to me.

No no no,,, i was not suspecting!! I was just surprised to see a confusing statement, i mean, why would anyone suspect something like this from people of civilized progressive world!! They wont ever accept their country killing people by the millions, even if they are Muslims!! There will be protests, calls to stop it! I am sure of it.

 

[VCheng]

No no no,,, i was not suspecting!! I was just surprised to see a confusing statement, i mean, why would anyone suspect something like this from people of civilized progressive world!! They wont ever accept their country killing people by the millions, even if they are Muslims!! There will be protests, calls to stop it! I am sure of it.

Considering that people of the civilized progressive world see most Muslims being killed by other Muslims, selective outrage by a hypocritical few does not go far.

As you said, if it were really a big issue, there would be protests against it.

 

[gambit]

Who was the "ground observer" in this particular case?

I have no interests in indulging your whims. We are speaking in principles that you know you cannot meet and that is why you seek to get the issue bogged in the details.

What am I trying to do? Demanding perfection?
I am not demanding perfection.

Of course you are -- when it comes to US.

That also means that the Nazis were justified in their actions against partisans and resistance fighters ? And that these groups were not operating in line with the rules of warfare.

Then why did your general gave that statement;
"During the Second World War, General Eisenhower sent a proclamation to Nazis and Frenchmen alike, formally recognizing the French resistance Maquis as members of the Allied Forces and warned the Germans that all guerillas were to be given the same honorable treatment as the regular soldiers under him in the Allied Expeditionary Force. "

Sorry, pal. But the Geneva Convention were formalized AFTER WW II.

Your statement implies that Bashar Al Assad had the right to bomb his own people---an action which was and still is being condemned by your govt. (They still condemned Ghouta bombings carried out by Assad and Russians while they themselves were bombing Raqqa during the same period)?

That 'implication' is by YOU via your flawed understanding of the rules of warfare, not from me.

You want to view US in a negative light? Go ahead. Am not here to change your mind. As I have always said before, the main reason that ANYONE should debate any subject is the unknown number of silent readers out there. It is their minds you need to change. Good luck, because right now, no one in his/her objective mind is going to believe that the Taliban or Al-Qaeda are privileged combatants or that Saddam Hussein was righteous in his gassing of the Kurdish villages.

 

[Arsalan]

Considering that people of the civilized progressive world see most Muslims being killed by other Muslims, selective outrage by a hypocritical few does not go far.

As you said, if it were really a big issue, there would be protests against it.

Well even viewing those murdered as being Muslims or Christians do not suite the secular progress world in my opinion? Should it really matter? i mean, the modern world do cares about Human life being lost!! No matter what. Right?

 

[VCheng]

Well even viewing those murdered as being Muslims or Christians do not suite the secular progress world in my opinion? Should it really matter? i mean, the modern world do cares about Human life being lost!! No matter what. Right?

To be honest, I did not get the point you are trying to make here. Please explain for my benefit. Thanks.