* Please don't just dump a link with no comment.
* Snippets are SHORT amounts of text that should be followed by a source link.
* contact notmsnmoney@live.com if you need help with something.
Beirut (AFP) - US-led air strikes on Syria killed a total of 225 civilians over the past month, a monitor said on Tuesday, the highest 30-day toll since the campaign began in 2014.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the civilian dead between April 23 and May 23 included 44 children and 36 women.
The US-led air campaign against the Islamic State jihadist group in Syria began on September 23, 2014.
"The past month of operations is the highest civilian toll since the coalition began bombing Syria," Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.
"There has been a very big escalation."
The previous deadliest 30-day period was between February 23 and March 23 this year, when 220 civilians were killed, Abdel Rahman said.
In its war against one enemy state, the US and UK governments--possibly your governments--have killed 225 innocent civilians in the past month alone, equivalent to 10 Manchester bombings in one month.
A greater discussion on how the war in which we're now engaged was a predictable (and indeed, predicted) consequence of US foreign policy dating back to 2003 is viewable here.
We call ISIS agents "cowards"--cruel, inhuman, devoid of all decency, murderers of children. Given the acts of our respective states and our near-total indifference to the suffering of our enemies, why on Earth should they take us seriously?
Ten Manchester bombings a month on your dime, with your permission, with nary a tear shed. This is what you're carrying on your back when you spot a would-be ISIS terrorist and go up to talk to him. What do you say to him? How do you convince him you deserve to live?
Post by Spellbound454 on May 29, 2017 18:20:40 GMT -5
This isn't more of the "Evil West is responsible for everything bad in the World".. excuse again
Qutb and Mawdudi started Islamism years before the Iranian revolution. It is not a product of recent Western "War on Terror"......These people were opposed to secularism with Western influence.... and espoused a Theocracy which was more akin to Communism than anything else..... 50+ years ago.
As for "civilians" who are being killed.... they are mostly jihadis that are using women and children as human shields. ISIS human rights abuses... ie beheadings, crucifixions, rape and throwing people off bridges......... would tend to imply that they are far more barbaric than this movement was ever supposed to be. Throw in a 1200 sectarian argument and you have a really big problem.
Nothing can justify the Manchester bombings...... absolutely nothing.
This isn't more of the "Evil West is responsible for everything bad in the World".. excuse again
Qutb and Mawdudi started Islamism years before the Iranian revolution. It is not a product of recent Western "War on Terror"......These people were opposed to secularism with Western influence.... and espoused a Theocracy which was more akin to Communism than anything else..... 50+ years ago.
As for "civilians" who are being killed.... they are mostly jihadis that are using women and children as human shields. ISIS human rights abuses... ie beheadings, crucifixions, rape and throwing people off bridges......... would tend to imply that they are far more barbaric than this movement was ever supposed to be. Throw in a 1200 sectarian argument and you have a really big problem.
Nothing can justify the Manchester bombings...... absolutely nothing.
As billis points out, the question is about the scores of civilians (not sure why you're putting it in quotes) not engaged in any of the aforementioned human rights abuses. What makes them any different from the victims of the Manchester bombing, and what justifies our nations' shedding of blood that doesn't also apply to ISIS?
Beirut (AFP) - US-led air strikes on Syria killed a total of 225 civilians over the past month, a monitor said on Tuesday, the highest 30-day toll since the campaign began in 2014.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the civilian dead between April 23 and May 23 included 44 children and 36 women.
The US-led air campaign against the Islamic State jihadist group in Syria began on September 23, 2014.
"The past month of operations is the highest civilian toll since the coalition began bombing Syria," Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.
"There has been a very big escalation."
The previous deadliest 30-day period was between February 23 and March 23 this year, when 220 civilians were killed, Abdel Rahman said.
In its war against one enemy state, the US and UK governments--possibly your governments--have killed 225 innocent civilians in the past month alone, equivalent to 10 Manchester bombings in one month.
A greater discussion on how the war in which we're now engaged was a predictable (and indeed, predicted) consequence of US foreign policy dating back to 2003 is viewable here.
We call ISIS agents "cowards"--cruel, inhuman, devoid of all decency, murderers of children. Given the acts of our respective states and our near-total indifference to the suffering of our enemies, why on Earth should they take us seriously?
Ten Manchester bombings a month on your dime, with your permission, with nary a tear shed. This is what you're carrying on your back when you spot a would-be ISIS terrorist and go up to talk to him. What do you say to him? How do you convince him you deserve to live?
Your children and innocents would quit being collateral damage if you'd quit hiding in towns and cities and religious places and hospitals... and if you'd quit committing terrorism.
None of our attacks TARGET the innocent. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, usually ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY target the innocent.
... Your children and innocents would quit being collateral damage if you'd quit hiding in towns and cities and religious places and hospitals... and if you'd quit committing terrorism.
... Your children and innocents would quit being collateral damage if you'd quit hiding in towns and cities and religious places and hospitals... and if you'd quit committing terrorism.
...
They don't care.
I never said that they did. I was merely answering Virgil Showlion's question.
None of our attacks TARGET the innocent. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, usually ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY target the innocent.
Firstly, this isn't true. Terrorists frequently target soldiers, military bases, government buildings, infrastructure, and other strategic targets, both here and abroad. We tend not to hear as much about these attacks since i) they're generally less effective, if they succeed at all, and ii) attacks on military targets barely rate a mention in the news of the day.
Secondly, if our attacks claim 100 times as many civilian lives as theirs, and the civilian-to-target casualty ratio is well above 1:1 (some estimates put it as high as 20:1), does our choice of target really matter?
For example, if the ISIS bomber had targeted the Manchester pop concert because he knew a high-ranking UK general would be driving by to pick up his daughter, and the assassination attempt was successful, would this make the bombing more justifiable in your eyes?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to justify ISIS' attacks or sanction their doctrines. I'm just having a really hard time figuring out why so many people are shocked and mystified by ISIS' hatred for the West and their complete indifference to our suffering. It's also beyond me why any Westerner would support a continued military campaign in Syria aside from the desire to exterminate expansionist Islam (the very same that Europe battled during the oft-maligned Crusades).
None of our attacks TARGET the innocent. Terrorist attacks, on the other hand, usually ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY target the innocent.
Firstly, this isn't true. Terrorists frequently target soldiers, military bases, government buildings, infrastructure, and other strategic targets, both here and abroad. We tend not to hear as much about these attacks since i) they're generally less effective, if they succeed at all, and ii) attacks on military targets barely rate a mention in the news of the day.
Secondly, if our attacks claim 100 times as many civilian lives as theirs, and the civilian-to-target casualty ratio is well above 1:1 (some estimates put it as high as 20:1), does our choice of target really matter?
For example, if the ISIS bomber had targeted the Manchester pop concert because he knew a high-ranking UK general would be driving by to pick up his daughter, and the assassination attempt was successful, would this make the bombing more justifiable in your eyes?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to justify ISIS' attacks or sanction their doctrines. I'm just having a really hard time figuring out why so many people are shocked and mystified by ISIS' hatred for the West and their complete indifference to our suffering. It's also beyond me why any Westerner would support a continued military campaign in Syria aside from the desire to exterminate expansionist Islam (the very same that Europe battled during the oft-maligned Crusades).
Firstly: it's ABSOLUTELY True. (I did include the English word "usually", meaning that it's not always the case, just mostly) Perfect examples:
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED at the two terrorist bombed churches in Egypt?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED on that Christian bus that was recently attacked in Egypt?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED at that Ariana Grande concert?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED on those 4 planes on 9/11?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED in those two towers in New York on 9/11 AND the earlier bombing that failed to bring one of them down?
While we don't know the target of the plane that went down over Pennsylvania, it's likely that it was NOT the Pentagon (one plane per building based on the other three planes), How many Military Personnel Would be expected at any NON-PENTAGON Washington building?
That's 10 attacks by terrorists with ZERO EXPECTED likelihood of Military casualties. and those are just the first 10 off of the top of my head while sitting here typing without even thinking about it
Yes... there were a few attacks on Military places (The Pentagon, The USS Cole, The Marine barracks in Lebanon, et cetera) But those are few and far between.
Firstly, this isn't true. Terrorists frequently target soldiers, military bases, government buildings, infrastructure, and other strategic targets, both here and abroad. We tend not to hear as much about these attacks since i) they're generally less effective, if they succeed at all, and ii) attacks on military targets barely rate a mention in the news of the day.
Secondly, if our attacks claim 100 times as many civilian lives as theirs, and the civilian-to-target casualty ratio is well above 1:1 (some estimates put it as high as 20:1), does our choice of target really matter?
For example, if the ISIS bomber had targeted the Manchester pop concert because he knew a high-ranking UK general would be driving by to pick up his daughter, and the assassination attempt was successful, would this make the bombing more justifiable in your eyes?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to justify ISIS' attacks or sanction their doctrines. I'm just having a really hard time figuring out why so many people are shocked and mystified by ISIS' hatred for the West and their complete indifference to our suffering. It's also beyond me why any Westerner would support a continued military campaign in Syria aside from the desire to exterminate expansionist Islam (the very same that Europe battled during the oft-maligned Crusades).
Firstly: it's ABSOLUTELY True. (I did include the English word "usually", meaning that it's not always the case, just mostly) Perfect examples:
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED at the two terrorist bombed churches in Egypt?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED on that Christian bus that was recently attacked in Egypt?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED at that Ariana Grande concert?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED on those 4 planes on 9/11?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED in those two towers in New York on 9/11 AND the earlier bombing that failed to bring one of them down?
While we don't know the target of the plane that went down over Pennsylvania, it's likely that it was NOT the Pentagon (one plane per building based on the other three planes), How many Military Personnel Would be expected at any NON-PENTAGON Washington building?
That's 10 attacks by terrorists with ZERO EXPECTED likelihood of Military casualties. and those are just the first 10 off of the top of my head while sitting here typing without even thinking about it
Yes... there were a few attacks on Military places (The Pentagon, The USS Cole, The Marine barracks in Lebanon, et cetera) But those are few and far between.
Secondly: Intent always matters.
Firstly, behold "the list". At first glance: at least 50% military/police targets.
Secondly: Your answer to my hypothetical about the Manchester attack targeting a UK general is "yes"? I find that really hard to believe.
Firstly: it's ABSOLUTELY True. (I did include the English word "usually", meaning that it's not always the case, just mostly) Perfect examples:
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED at the two terrorist bombed churches in Egypt?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED on that Christian bus that was recently attacked in Egypt?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED at that Ariana Grande concert?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED on those 4 planes on 9/11?
How many Military Personnel were EXPECTED in those two towers in New York on 9/11 AND the earlier bombing that failed to bring one of them down?
While we don't know the target of the plane that went down over Pennsylvania, it's likely that it was NOT the Pentagon (one plane per building based on the other three planes), How many Military Personnel Would be expected at any NON-PENTAGON Washington building?
That's 10 attacks by terrorists with ZERO EXPECTED likelihood of Military casualties. and those are just the first 10 off of the top of my head while sitting here typing without even thinking about it
Yes... there were a few attacks on Military places (The Pentagon, The USS Cole, The Marine barracks in Lebanon, et cetera) But those are few and far between.
Secondly: Intent always matters.
Firstly, behold "the list". At first glance: at least 50% military/police targets.
Secondly: Your answer to my hypothetical about the Manchester attack targeting a UK general is "yes"? I find that really hard to believe.
Firstly: You need to either take a second (and maybe a third and a fourth) glace at that list then... or get new eyewear.
Secondly: My answer wasn't "yes". It was "intent always matters". The question of "were there other more viable options, that would reduce or eliminate civilian casualties?" comes into play once Intent has been satisfied.
Waiting for the terrorists to attack and blow themselves up killing hundreds to thousands (in totality) isn't really what I would call a "viable option". UK Generals whereabouts are pretty easy to get information on... with a little effort, and if you know he's going to be there, you RPG the CAR (granted, creating SOME collateral damage, but not on the scale of what could have happened in the arena), you don't blow up a bomb in the arena.
As billis points out, the question is about the scores of civilians (not sure why you're putting it in quotes) not engaged in any of the aforementioned human rights abuses. What makes them any different from the victims of the Manchester bombing, and what justifies our nations' shedding of blood that doesn't also apply to ISIS?
I'm putting it in quotes because in the reporting of Middle Eastern Wars .... Everyone hurt or injured is a "civilian" ...especially the fighting men.
Its part of the propaganda machine. The whole place is knee deep in lies and unless I see independent reporting from a reliable source I'm inclined not to believe any of the casualty figures with regards to civilians.
You are presumably arguing that one innocent civilian is the same as another.... However, one is an unfortunate casualty of military operations, where care is taken to avoid civilians.... and one is a deliberate act of terrorism where as many civilians as possible were attacked.
Manchester was targeted because there would likely be a lot of young females at the concert and the Isis ideology with regards to piety, shame, intolerance and modesty... would not allow for females to enjoy a pop concert. (or enjoy anything for that matter...Females are to be subjugated) So, as to the question " Why on earth should they take us seriously" They don't. They hate us and our way of life......and that is not a consequence of conflict. That is their belief.
What do you say to him? How do you convince him you deserve to live?
We don't need his permission to live. If anyone was aware of what the bomber was about to do they would have shot him dead without any legal consequence or second thought.
Firstly, behold "the list". At first glance: at least 50% military/police targets.
Secondly: Your answer to my hypothetical about the Manchester attack targeting a UK general is "yes"? I find that really hard to believe.
Firstly: You need to either take a second (and maybe a third and a fourth) glace at that list then... or get new eyewear.
Secondly: My answer wasn't "yes". It was "intent always matters". The question of "were there other more viable options, that would reduce or eliminate civilian casualties?" comes into play once Intent has been satisfied.
Waiting for the terrorists to attack and blow themselves up killing hundreds to thousands (in totality) isn't really what I would call a "viable option". UK Generals whereabouts are pretty easy to get information on... with a little effort, and if you know he's going to be there, you RPG the CAR (granted, creating SOME collateral damage, but not on the scale of what could have happened in the arena), you don't blow up a bomb in the arena.
If the bomb takes out 22 people along with the general, that's a 22:1 civilian-to-target ratio, comparable to the 20:1 ratio at the high end of the estimates for the campaign in Syria. Hence one Manchester bombing per target (or let's say one Manchester bombing per two targets, for a more conservative estimate) would put ISIS' level of collateral damage on par with ours.
To put this into perspective, it means that if they managed to take out 100 diplomats, leaders, ambassadors (all targets) by bombing the UN headquarters, they'd also have to bomb 50 little girls' pop concerts, each with the same number of casualties as the Manchester bombing, to match our success rate in eliminating targets without collateral damage.
Firstly: You need to either take a second (and maybe a third and a fourth) glace at that list then... or get new eyewear.
25 out of 71, not including embassies, and assuming all attacks where no target is specified are non-military. I suppose you can get away with "usually" in the sense of "more often than not".
You are presumably arguing that one innocent civilian is the same as another.... However, one is an unfortunate casualty of military operations, where care is taken to avoid civilians.... and one is a deliberate act of terrorism where as many civilians as possible were attacked.
...and as Richard says, "intent matters".
I guess it has to, because you're certainly not going to find any differences based on actual outcome.
There's also the Intent of Stopping Terrorists vs. the Intent of BEING a Terrorist.
Bombings that kill terrorists, even when they are hiding behind Innocents is greatly different than Killing innocents in the furtherance of terror.
It's sad that innocent deaths happen, But if the terrorists would stop, everything would stop. The terrorists are in absolute control. All they have to do is give up their terrorism.
Even sadder they aren't smart enough to figure that part out... That if they would stop, so would we. We would stop hunting them if they'd stop killing us.
Even sadder they aren't smart enough to figure that part out... That if they would stop, so would we. We would stop hunting them if they'd stop killing us.
I think we are getting played by those you admit are in control.
... Its part of the propaganda machine. The whole place is knee deep in lies ...
Looks like you have your answer to what is the difference Virgil Showlion. They are merely an insignificant side effect that likely don't even really exist anyway.
... Its part of the propaganda machine. The whole place is knee deep in lies ...
Looks like you have your answer to what is the difference Virgil Showlion . They are merely an insignificant side effect that likely don't even really exist anyway.
...and if they do exist, they're future terrorists and/or breeders of future terrorists!
To heck with turning away refugee boats, we should be sending those death barges straight to the bottom of the Mediterranean.
On the bright side, people don't seem to be having any trouble sleeping.