15 years?! That's it?!

[zakur]

German court jails September 11 conspirator for 15 years (http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2254095)
By Reuters

HAMBURG - A German court convicted a Moroccan on Wednesday of aiding the September 11 suicide hijackers and sentenced him to the maximum possible 15-year jail term in the first trial of an attack conspirator.

Mounir El Motassadeq, 28, a slightly built electrical engineering student, was convicted of being an accessory to the murder of 3,066 people in the plane attacks on New York and Washington, presiding judge Albrecht Mentz said.15 years for accessory to murder of more than 3,000 people seems a bit lenient to me.

I wonder why only 15 years is the maximum allowable sentence.

I would think 15 years for each death he helped bring about....

[corplinx]

You see any pictures of the guy after they sentenced him? He looks soooooo relieved.

In the man's defense, supposedly only the pilots and higher ups knew all the details of the plan. This man may have been accessory to 3000 murders but did not know it. 15 years may be all they can sentence him for.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by corplinx
You see any pictures of the guy after they sentenced him? He looks soooooo relieved.

In the man's defense, supposedly only the pilots and higher ups knew all the details of the plan. This man may have been accessory to 3000 murders but did not know it. 15 years may be all they can sentence him for.

That's about right. Supposed he only knew that some attack was prepared without knowing when, where and what, a life sentence was out of reach. I'm not an expert on this though.

Zee

[DaChew]

Oh don't worry. He looks pretty young. They'll have him tossing salads in no time.

[Richard G]

This guy should have been publicly dismembered, all his family killed, and his house burned to the ground. Its the only thing these fundamentalist nuts understand. Germany has always been lax on crime however.

Heres the whole scoop:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/19/95405.shtml

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Richard G
This guy should have been publicly dismembered, all his family killed, and his house burned to the ground. Its the only thing these fundamentalist nuts understand.

Nah, it think DaChew is right. He will understand that eating dingleberries and flossing with ass hair isn't the life of a true martyr. I wonder if he prefers jelly or syrup?

I wonder if they toss salads in German prisons or if that is an American prison phenomenon.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by corplinx


Nah, it think DaChew is right. He will understand that eating dingleberries and flossing with ass hair isn't the life of a true martyr. I wonder if he prefers jelly or syrup?

I wonder if they toss salads in German prisons or if that is an American prison phenomenon.

Sorry, I would suspect that if anything, this guy won't suffer one bit from his time in prison in Germany. He'll be inconvenienced, and he won't be watching much TV, not to mention his mail will be censored, but as hard as things are in German prisons, they're NOTHING like American prisons.

And frankly, that's a shame.

Unfortunately, it's also unlikely the U.S. will get a crack at him.

If only...:mad:

[Number Six]

Let's see, 15 years in prison for being an accessory to 3,000 murders comes out to about...1.8 days in prison for each accessory to murder conviction.

[kittynh]

I once decided that when I was going to murder someone I was definitly doing it in Belgium. the paper had a huge article on how "awful" the prisons were. The picture of the average cell I at first mistook for a Holiday Inn Express room. Then I noticed it was WAY nicer. Carpeting! Private bath and toilet! No shared rooms! comforters and lots of pillows! Framed pictures on the wall! And 80% of the inmates spend all day out in town at their "jobs" totally unsupervised! Also, forgot the percentage, but very very few Belgians were in these prisons. they were full of foreigners (probably American women who decided they'd had it with their in laws...).

I can't imagine Germany not having equally if not nicer facilities.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by corplinx


Nah, it think DaChew is right. He will understand that eating dingleberries and flossing with ass hair isn't the life of a true martyr. I wonder if he prefers jelly or syrup?

I wonder if they toss salads in German prisons or if that is an American prison phenomenon.

I can't understand the american obsession with making prisons as brutal as possible. It has not been shown to reduce crime. Belgium, for all the wisecracks about it being like a motel, has a lower imprisonment rate than the US. Now, which system appears to be working better?

[kittynh]

I just can't figure out why they are filled with foreigners though. I think the Belgiums are the most law abiding people ever -well there's the dog doodie issue, but other than that. I mean, there would be hardly anyone in prison if it were Belgiums. All I know was that people were pretty mad that they had to mantain these prisons for non-Belgiums. I only got very racist answers when I asked why though. There seems to be a lot of anger, so I don't think I was getting an unbiased answer.

[Crossbow]

15 years sounds about right.

After all, he was not directly involved in the attacks and there is a very real possiblilty that additional charges could be set against him in the future.

[Trollbane]

Originally posted by kittynh
And 80% of the inmates spend all day out in town at their "jobs" totally unsupervised!

Hmmm.. Sounds a bit like the prison system in Finland. Here there are basicly two types of prisons, open and closed. For small crimes you go to a open prison which is basicly a motel room with curfews and restrictions on how you spend your time and so on, so you can go to a town to work and get occasional weekends off.

[shemp]

Originally posted by Trollbane


Hmmm.. Sounds a bit like the prison system in Finland. Here there are basicly two types of prisons, open and closed. For small crimes you go to a open prison which is basicly a motel room with curfews and restrictions on how you spend your time and so on, so you can go to a town to work and get occasional weekends off.

Sounds like a better deal than marriage.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally posted by kittynh


I can't imagine Germany not having equally if not nicer facilities.

Of course, they get breadfast in bed and a private airobic trainer.
That's why the crime rate is so high in Germany compared to the US. The bad guys just can't wait to do time.

Well, if you think 15 years is not enough, that's too bad for you. But then, you can't do nothing about it can you? :p

Zee

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I can't understand the american obsession with making prisons as brutal as possible. It has not been shown to reduce crime.

Maybe. But it punishes the cnuts.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Richard G
This guy should have been publicly dismembered, all his family killed, and his house burned to the ground.


Would you like to live in a country where criminals are treated that way?

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Richard G
... all his family killed...


I simply can't believe it.
This sounds a lot like something the Taliban would have done...

For God's sake, I thought this was about defending the values of western civilization...

[Smalso]

The reason he only got 15 years:

HAMBURG - A German court convicted a Moroccan on Wednesday of aiding the September 11 suicide hijackers and sentenced him to the maximum possible 15-year jail term in the first trial of an attack conspirator.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Nitpick


I simply can't believe it.
This sounds a lot like something the Taliban would have done...

For God's sake, I thought this was about defending the values of western civilization...
Calm down...He's just trolling. Maybe if it was his relative that did it he would not be so keen on the "kill the family" troll line...

[LillyThePink]

All this outrage at the guy only getting 15 years... for being part of a plot killing 3,000 civilians. You do of course realise that when the US & co started dropping bombs on Afghanistan, more civilans were killed there than in the entire 9/11 totals.

Of course, if the Allies do it, then civilians are just collateral damage, eh?

:rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by armageddonman



Would you like to live in a country where criminals are treated that way?

i think you would like saudi arabia.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Lilly the Pink:
All this outrage at the guy only getting 15 years... for being part of a plot killing 3,000 civilians. You do of course realise that when the US & co started dropping bombs on Afghanistan, more civilans were killed there than in the entire 9/11 totals.

Of course, if the Allies do it, then civilians are just collateral damage, eh?

Have you reliable figures for to back up your assertion?

Judging by the happy and relieved faces on the streets of Kabul after the collapse of the Taliban regime, ordinary Afghanis probably supported the allied air strikes.

[a_unique_person]

U.S. Cluster Bombs Killed Civilians in Afghanistan
New Report Illustrates Dangers for Iraq
(Washington, D.C., December 18, 2002) During its air war in Afghanistan, the United States dropped nearly a quarter-million cluster bomblets that killed or injured scores of civilians, especially children, both during and after strikes, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“As war looms in Iraq, the United States should learn from the lessons of its Afghanistan air war....It should not use cluster bombs at all until the dud rate has been brought way down. At the very least, it should never use cluster bombs near inhabited towns and villages.”
Bonnie Docherty
Researcher in the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 65-page report, Fatally Flawed: Cluster Bombs and Their Use by the United States in Afghanistan, says that although the United States made some efforts to reduce the civilian harm caused by its cluster bombs in Afghanistan, the fundamental problems of the weapon remained.
Human Rights Watch found that the United States did not take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties, as required by international humanitarian law, when it used cluster bombs in or near populated areas. U.S. cluster bombs also left an estimated 12,400 explosive duds—de facto antipersonnel landmines—that continue to take civilian lives to this day.

Human Rights Watch has previously documented the harm to civilians from U.S. cluster bombs in the 1991 Gulf War and 1999 Yugoslav air campaign. The new Human Rights Watch report found that the humanitarian side effects of cluster bombs were less serious in Afghanistan than in these earlier conflicts, in part due to the smaller number of bombs used.

“As war looms in Iraq, the United States should learn from the lessons of its Afghanistan air war,” said Bonnie Docherty, researcher in the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch and the author of the report. “It should not use cluster bombs at all until the dud rate has been brought way down. At the very least, it should never use cluster bombs near inhabited towns and villages.”

The new report presents the findings of a month-long mission to Afghanistan. It also compares recent use of cluster bombs to that in the Gulf War and Kosovo.

In Afghanistan, the United States restricted cluster bomb targets more than in the past and employed new technology, notably the wind corrected munitions dispenser, to improve the accuracy of these weapons. It also used fewer cluster bombs, dropping 1,228 cluster bombs, which contained 248,056 bomblets, in Afghanistan. Allied forces dropped 61,000 bombs with twenty million bomblets in the Gulf War and 1,765 bombs with 295,000 bomblets in Yugoslavia.




http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/12/arms1218.htm

[Shane Costello]

From the Human Rights Watch link:


"During its air war in Afghanistan, the United States dropped nearly a quarter-million cluster bomblets that killed or injured scores of civilians, especially children, both during and after strikes, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today."

So how many were actually killed? Whatever the number, it was certainly less than those killed at the WTC, if the Human Rights Watch figures are anything to go by.

[LillyThePink]

Define reliable, Shaun :rolleyes:

http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html#appendix1

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

http://monkeyfist.com/articles/800

http://www.geocities.com/stuart323_99/bombing_casualties.htm

http://www.comw.org/pda/0201strangevic.html#1.2.1

World wide condemnation of the bombing of Afghanistan civilians:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583795,00.html

I hope any of those similar figures will do. :D

[a_unique_person]

Marhama, 25, who sits in front of her surviving children, suffered a serious leg injury during a cluster bomb attack in Ainger on November 17,
2001. Her leg brace is partially visible. Marhama’s husband and 10-year-old son died in the attack. © Bonnie Docherty / Human Rights Watch,
2002.

http://hrw.org/reports/2002/us-afghanistan/

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
So how many were actually killed? Whatever the number, it was certainly less than those killed at the WTC, if the Human Rights Watch figures are anything to go by.

Some say that there were around 3800 civilian deaths (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1740538.stm) .

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
So how many were actually killed? Whatever the number, it was certainly less than those killed at the WTC, if the Human Rights Watch figures are anything to go by.

Oddly enough, there are only estimates, Shaun..


The Pentagon has not kept an accounting of civilian casualties from U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan since Operation Enduring Freedom began, the U.S. Central Command said yesterday.

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59457-2002Jan3?language=printer

Also, I found this interesting... could apply anywhere, really eh?


"All they're doing is reporting the claims of the villagers," the official said of the U.N. statement.


Doesn't make it untrue, though, does it?? :confused:

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Lilly the Pink:
Define reliable, Shaun :rolleyes:

Well the WTC figures have to be considered more reliable than the ones for Afghani civilians, given the conditions under which both were compiled.

I'm not arguing that civilians weren't killed by the allied operations in Afghanistan, and I'd concede that it's possible the numbers far exceeded those for the WTC attack. What I do believe is that to compaere the accidental death of civilians in Afghanistan and the deliberate targetting of civilians by terrorists is sick moral relativism.

[LillyThePink]

Judging by Pentagon statements at the time and strategic bombing into heavily populated areas, I don't think that the Afghanistani deaths were particularly accidental.

*shrug* Sick is only your opinion, hon. Thanks for your concession, anyway.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shane Costello



Well the WTC figures have to be considered more reliable than the ones for Afghani civilians, given the conditions under which both were compiled.

I'm not arguing that civilians weren't killed by the allied operations in Afghanistan, and I'd concede that it's possible the numbers far exceeded those for the WTC attack. What I do believe is that to compaere the accidental death of civilians in Afghanistan and the deliberate targetting of civilians by terrorists is sick moral relativism.

so if you are accidentally killed, then that isn't so bad.

[LillyThePink]

ummm.. can you edit your post, AUP.. it looks like I said your quote!! :p

Thanks

[Richard G]

I like your images AUP. Lets look at some more. (For the oblivious, these are WMD victims of Saddam.) Could be you next. Is the Human Rights Watch keeping an eye on these?

http://kurdistan.org/Multimedia/Iraq.jpg
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/09/photo5.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/12.gif
http://www.iranvision.com/images/iran-iraq/images/child2.jpg

[LillyThePink]

Do you have a point, Richard?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by a_unique_person:
so if you are accidentally killed, then that isn't so bad.

Strawman.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Lilly the Pink:
Judging by Pentagon statements at the time and strategic bombing into heavily populated areas, I don't think that the Afghanistani deaths were particularly accidental.

Civilians were not deliberately targetted.

[LillyThePink]

The evidence would suggest that whilst what you are saying may be true, Civilians were not particularly avoided either.

[Shane Costello]

Originaly posted by LillyThePink:
The evidence would suggest that whilst what you are saying may be true, Civilians were not particularly avoided either.

Because it was believed that they were harbouring terrorists.

[LillyThePink]

Well, what can I say. That's obviously a justification for killing women and children.

Are you serious?

[Shane Costello]

Well if you harbour belligerants in a warzone during a war, you hardly qualify as an "innocent civilian".

[LillyThePink]

Shane, I gave you evidence of the figures - would you care to show evidence that the women and children who were killed running away from a blast bomb were in any way linked with the Al Quaeda regime?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by LillyThe Pink:
Shane, I gave you evidence of the figures - would you care to show evidence that the women and children who were killed running away from a blast bomb were in any way linked with the Al Quaeda regime?

Firstly, I was referring to the "civilian" casualties around Tora-Bora. Secondly, I'm not denying inadvertant deaths occured elsewhere. In the instance you're referring to, civilians were not deliberately targetted. Can you expand on your assertion that civilian deaths were not particularly avoided?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I can't understand the american obsession with making prisons as brutal as possible. It has not been shown to reduce crime. Belgium, for all the wisecracks about it being like a motel, has a lower imprisonment rate than the US. Now, which system appears to be working better?

Kneejerk liberalism in all it's glory.

Poor offenders...let's coddle them with TV's and a law library. :mad:

A prison is a brutal place for brutal people. Simple as that. Anyone ever see "OZ" on HBO?? The facility is modern and quite humane. It's the people...the tribalism...the predators that make it brutal. Take all the murderers out and throw in a bunch of AUP and Shanek-type pseudo intellectual liberals and the closest thing to brutality will be the chess tournaments.

American prisons are not nearly as brutal as the prisoners themselves.

-zilla

BTW...just in case of a breakdown in civilization...all supermax prisons should be built on top of an atomic bomb....so that the last cop out the door can lock them all in and set the timer.

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Firstly, I was referring to the "civilian" casualties around Tora-Bora. Secondly, I'm not denying inadvertant deaths occured elsewhere. In the instance you're referring to, civilians were not deliberately targetted. Can you expand on your assertion that civilian deaths were not particularly avoided?

Perhaps if you had been more accurate in your original reference, we could have been clearer on what we were actually discussing, Shane. If you meant civilians in a particular area (Tora Bora), then I can understand your position better. As it stands, I am referring to the unacceptable levels of civilian casualties during the bombing campaign of Afghanistan generally, rather than a specific instance, ergo your remark about the instance I'm referring to has me confused.....perhaps you could clarify before I respond.

[iain]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Kneejerk liberalism in all it's glory.

Poor offenders...let's coddle them with TV's and a law library. :mad:

A prison is a brutal place for brutal people. Simple as that. rik,
Your approach sounds like kneejerk conservatism. Where is your evidence to back up the benefits of a harsh prison sentence? Does it result in a lower reoffending rate? Does it reduce the overall numer people in prison, due to fear of going inside? Does it lead to lower levels of crime?

As for your assertion that prisoners are "brutal people", that's just laughable (though maybe US prisons turn normal people into brutal people). A small proportion of prisoners are in prison for violent offences. The vast majority are not (at least, that is the case in Europe; let me know if this is not true in the US).

By what definition is the pickpocket, fraudster, loan defaulter, shoplifter etc. "brutal"?

And what are the estimates of civilian casualties during the Taliban's rise to power? And what are the estimates of innocents killed under the Taliban regime? Has the media researched that as deeply and as well as how many civilians were killed by U.S. bombs?

If a survey was done of the Afghani population tomorrow, how do you think the numbers would come out to the question, "Are you better off today than you were two years ago?"

Oh, and one more thing you blame-America-firsters need to get through your incredibly thick skulls:

When one nation attacks another nation. Every single death that occurs to them in retaliation is THEIR FAULT!

Got it? Can you comprehend that?

Every death in Germany during WWII was Hitler's fault.

Every death in Afghanistan was the Taliban's fault.

[LillyThePink]

Surely you guys must have some stats on the Taliban's rise to power - you're the ones who helped them chased the Ruskies out, no?

And I fail to see the relevance. The point I'm making is that the Aliied forces appear to have a terrifying lack of respect for human life, be it civilian, or "friendlies"... the stats are quite scary.

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by LukeT


Every death in Afghanistan was the Taliban's fault.


Is your statement here that the clerics of the Taliban were all actually members of Al Quaeda?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by iain
rik,
Your approach sounds like kneejerk conservatism. Where is your evidence to back up the benefits of a harsh prison sentence? Does it result in a lower reoffending rate? Does it reduce the overall numer people in prison, due to fear of going inside? Does it lead to lower levels of crime?

As for your assertion that prisoners are "brutal people", that's just laughable (though maybe US prisons turn normal people into brutal people). A small proportion of prisoners are in prison for violent offences. The vast majority are not (at least, that is the case in Europe; let me know if this is not true in the US).

By what definition is the pickpocket, fraudster, loan defaulter, shoplifter etc. "brutal"?

Well,

You aren't a watcher of the "OZ" series on HBO...it was in that context that I posted. OZ is a fictional "Supermax" prison....only the most dangerous and violent people go there. The show is all about their interaction with each other. My point is the PLACE is not brutal...only the people there are.

you'd have to know the series tho to know what I mean.

-zilla

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Surely you guys must have some stats on the Taliban's rise to power - you're the ones who helped them chased the Ruskies out, no?

And I fail to see the relevance. The point I'm making is that the Aliied forces appear to have a terrifying lack of respect for human life, be it civilian, or "friendlies"... the stats are quite scary.

Allied forces appear to have a terrifying lack of respect for human life! Jesus H. Christ.

Lilly, read this. (http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/reports.html)

I think you will find that RAWA was actually against the U.S. bombing Afghanistan prior to our retaliation. However, they did document the cruelties of the Taliban in the link above.

Read it. Then come back and talk about respect for human life.

Originally posted by LillyThePink



Is your statement here that the clerics of the Taliban were all actually members of Al Quaeda?

The Taliban were harboring Al Queda and bin Laden. REMEMBER?

[LillyThePink]

ummm yes I do remember - so you're standing by George's "who ever funds blah blah whoever harbours blah blah" ?

Coz if so, you all need to bomb the Irish Catholics in NY for funding the IRA for fricking years before you start on anyone overseas.

Hey, look! (http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/reports2.html#ma) Apparently Taliban artillery shells are drawn to civilians, too!

Hundreds of unarmed civilians have been the victims of indiscriminate killings by the Taliban in the last two years. In November 1995, Amnesty International again warned the international community of its growing concern for the safety of the civilian population of Kabul after a renewed bombardment of the city in which at least 57 unarmed civilians were killed and over150 were injured in the residential areas of the city in three days of indiscriminate rocket and artillery barrages fired from Taliban positions south of Kabul. .... In one day alone, on 11 November 1995, at least 36civilians were killed when over 170 rockets as well as shells hit civilians areas. A salvo crashed into Foruzga Market forcing the shoppers and traders to run for cover. Rockets struck the Taimani district where many people from other parts of Kabul have settled. Other residential areas hit by artillery and rocket attacks were the Bagh Bala district in the north west of Kabul and Wazir Akbar Khan where much of the city’s small foreign community live. .... Scores of civilians have been killed in the fighting north of Kabul since the Taliban captured the city on 27 September 1996. For example, bombs dropped from a Taliban plane on 24 October 1996 killed at least 20people, mostly children, in the village of Kalakan, north of Kabul. Airraids have also been carried out by the anti-Taliban alliance. In several instances bombs dropped from planes have hit civilian areas with no sign of military activities, killing several people including children.

AI, November 18,1996


Did you catch the "scores of civilians have been killed" phrase in there?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by iain
rik,
Your approach sounds like kneejerk conservatism. Where is your evidence to back up the benefits of a harsh prison sentence? Does it result in a lower reoffending rate? Does it reduce the overall numer people in prison, due to fear of going inside? Does it lead to lower levels of crime?

As for your assertion that prisoners are "brutal people", that's just laughable (though maybe US prisons turn normal people into brutal people). A small proportion of prisoners are in prison for violent offences. The vast majority are not (at least, that is the case in Europe; let me know if this is not true in the US).

By what definition is the pickpocket, fraudster, loan defaulter, shoplifter etc. "brutal"?

iain, I've actually had to go into California prisons. Sorry, but Rik has the right of it.

Guys in California prisons, if they want to exercise, post a guard. It's to keep people from sneaking up and knifing the others. (You'd be surprised what they can make weapons out of in prisons.)

I've known prison guards who have told me of friends walking along the catwalks in Folsom Prison, only to suddenly find themselves skewered with a homemade spear.

Ever heard of a matchhead bomb? All you need is an old toilet paper roll, a little TP, and a lot of matchbooks. It takes time, but, hey, that's all these guys have.

Budget constraints have forced non-violent criminals to be housed with the violent. When violence is the only language spoken, you get real fluent, real quick. Add to this the rate of recidivism in California, and the refusal of many to implement much needed penal reform, (which, oddly enough, would include the profiling of individual prisoners, based upon known data of their activities, and the Three Strikes law which usually sets liberal teeth on edge), and you begin to see why there's problems.

One of the reasons I wanted to leave my last gig was that it got me out of running loads into prisons. The thought that if I were taken hostage by these guys, that no one would negotiate for me, forced me to choose between earning a living or being there for my family.

No, iain, et al, they do their best to keep prisons clean, neat, safe, secure, but you do need to remember just what sort of people we put into our prisons to begin with.

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Coz if so, you all need to bomb the Irish Catholics in NY for funding the IRA for fricking years before you start on anyone overseas.

And don't forget Boston Catholics.

It is funny how easily some people will nod their heads in agreement when someone argues the U.S. "deserved" to have the WTC attacked, or at least that it was understandable that someone would attack this totally non-military target, and yet these same people are beyond comprehending that some civilians are going to get killed during a legitimate military action against an aggressor nation, and believe that it is all somehow OUR fault.

Post every freaking picture of innocent civilians killed by U.S. bombs you want, folks. There are literally millions-to-one who have died by the hands of their evil despots.

[Smalso]

Luke:

Are you saying that since the Taliban killed innocent civilians the forces of right and righteousness represented by the US are justified in killing innocent civilians as long as we kill fewer than they did? Does this mean that the US was justified in burning out villages and killing children and old people in Viet Nam because someone in the village might be harboring VC? Criminals kill innocent people every day. Does this mean the police are justified in killing a few themselves? I don't believe this is you position, but your reasoning seems to lead there. Could you please clarify?

Originally posted by Smalso
Luke:

Are you saying that since the Taliban killed innocent civilians the forces of right and righteousness represented by the US are justified in killing innocent civilians as long as we kill fewer than they did? Does this mean that the US was justified in burning out villages and killing children and old people in Viet Nam because someone in the village might be harboring VC? Criminals kill innocent people every day. Does this mean the police are justified in killing a few themselves? I don't believe this is you position, but your reasoning seems to lead there. Could you please clarify?

Smalso, first of all, I was deeply offended by Lilly's assertion that our military had no regard for human life. By that, she is trying to make a moral equivalency between the U.S. and all the evil bastards in the world.

Second of all, the U.S. takes great pains to minimize civilian casualties. The evil bastards do not.

Sometimes war is necessary. Anyone who thinks it can be avoided is either a complete idiot, or on the side of the evil bastards.

Because war is necessary, some innocent people are going to die. It is currently impossible to avoid that. It may always be impossible.

Third of all, the United States is not perfect. But I believe we have done far, far more right than wrong. I'm sick and tired of people pointing fingers at the mistakes we have made when the atrocities committed by the evil bastards make such finger-pointing sheer lunacy and willful blindness. It's like complaining about stubbing your toe while the guy next to you has had his arms and legs chopped off.

As for "does this mean the police are justified in killing a few themselves," you are implying that the "police" kill innocent people just because they can. That is total ********.

Now, if a policeman is chasing a felon who is a serious threat to society, one who may have even killed a dozen people, and in the course of the shootout or chase, an innocent civilian is killed by the policeman, IT'S THE FELON'S FAULT! And it certainly doesn't mean we should stop chasing down threats to society.

Why some people can't understand that is beyond my own understanding.

Should we let an evil bastard continue to kill thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of people just because we might accidentally kill "scores?"

What kind of logic is that?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT
Oh, and one more thing you blame-America-firsters need to get through your incredibly thick skulls:

When one nation attacks another nation. Every single death that occurs to them in retaliation is THEIR FAULT!

Got it? Can you comprehend that?

Every death in Germany during WWII was Hitler's fault.

Every death in Afghanistan was the Taliban's fault.

you don't seem to have much of a sense of history

with the cluster bombs, they have a very cheap and failure prone fuse. much of the civilian problem with them is the ones that don't go off, so that children find them etc. The least that could be done would be to make sure that they at least go off, without hanging around.

The US has not agreed to the land mine treaty, despite the fact that landmines are a scourge on much of the earth now.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT
Should we let an evil bastard continue to kill thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of people just because we might accidentally kill "scores?"

What kind of logic is that?

once again, why this particular one, and why now? I am all in favour of a co-ordinated and legally established process to reduce tyranny in the world. cowboy ventures that are taken unilaterally won't be any sort of a long term solution.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


you don't seem to have much of a sense of history

with the cluster bombs, they have a very cheap and failure prone fuse. much of the civilian problem with them is the ones that don't go off, so that children find them etc. The least that could be done would be to make sure that they at least go off, without hanging around.

The US has not agreed to the land mine treaty, despite the fact that landmines are a scourge on much of the earth now.

Hmmmm. You want the perfect weapon. Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you come up with a bomb that only kills bad guys! You'll make a killing, no pun intended.

As for the mines, there isn't much point to signing a treaty that says we will unilaterally disarm, aup.

And having been stationed in Guantanamo Bay, I can tell you that landmines still serve a very good purpose. Some of the fellas in South Korea will probably roger up on that, too.

I imagine you would be quite shocked and quite disappointed that a weapon that killed only bad guys didn't kill Americans, AUP...

[hammegk]

I have no doubt that aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaup would be certain that the device would kill only Americans. :rolleyes:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT


Hmmmm. You want the perfect weapon. Hey, I have an idea. Why don't you come up with a bomb that only kills bad guys! You'll make a killing, no pun intended.

As for the mines, there isn't much point to signing a treaty that says we will unilaterally disarm, aup.

And having been stationed in Guantanamo Bay, I can tell you that landmines still serve a very good purpose. Some of the fellas in South Korea will probably roger up on that, too.

who's purpose? does the military exist in isolation to the rest of the world. As for NK, the idea that their army could achieve anything more than the iraquis in the Gulf War is pretty laughable. but at least these mines are mostly in well defined areas. the real problem is the majority that are scattered around the world harming civilians every day.

There is no need for the US to have mines. Why don't the US just get out of guantanamo bay. It is a part of cuba anyway. And I can't see Cuba taking on the US militarily for the next thousand years or so.

but anyway, as i said, the main problem with the cluster bombs appears to be that so many of them don't go off, due to the cheap, shoddy firing mechanism used. they then hang around for years, harming civilians. maybe the US could at least ensure that if they are going to drop them, they will all go off at once. it's the little things that count.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT
I imagine you would be quite shocked and quite disappointed that a weapon that killed only bad guys didn't kill Americans, AUP...

funnily enough, i don't actually want americans killed any more than anyone else. I just don't want the most powerful country in the world to be indifferent to the results of it's policies.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



There is no need for the US to have mines. Why don't the US just get out of guantanamo bay. It is a part of cuba anyway. And I can't see Cuba taking on the US militarily for the next thousand years or so.



from security.org

"In December 1903, the United States leased the 45 square miles of land and water for use as a coaling station. A treaty reaffirmed the lease in 1934 granting Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, payment of $2,000 in gold per year, equating to $4,085 today, and a requirement that both the U.S. and Cuba must mutually consent to terminate the lease. "

We have a lease.

I forget who, but some comedian actually came up with a good solution to the problem of landmines in Cambodia (Kampuchea). He suggested that they buy all the Mad Cows from Great Britain and turn them loose in the Cambodian countryside....

Shhh. Don't tell PETA.

Ed is correct. We have a lease with Cuba in which both parties must agree to terminate. Guantanamo Bay serves as an excellent base of operations and training ground for the Navy and certain special forces.

While I was there, it also served an important role in South American drug interdiction.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


from security.org

"In December 1903, the United States leased the 45 square miles of land and water for use as a coaling station. A treaty reaffirmed the lease in 1934 granting Cuba and her trading partners free access through the bay, payment of $2,000 in gold per year, equating to $4,085 today, and a requirement that both the U.S. and Cuba must mutually consent to terminate the lease. "

We have a lease.

You call that a lease? Sounds like daylight robbery to me. How much coal are they dishing out there these days?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Because it was believed that they were harbouring terrorists.
that's the really scarey bit.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There is no need for the US to have mines. Why don't the US just get out of guantanamo bay. It is a part of cuba anyway. And I can't see Cuba taking on the US militarily for the next thousand years or so.

but anyway, as i said, the main problem with the cluster bombs appears to be that so many of them don't go off, due to the cheap, shoddy firing mechanism used. they then hang around for years, harming civilians. maybe the US could at least ensure that if they are going to drop them, they will all go off at once. it's the little things that count.

(1.) You can't be so naive as to believe that there's no need for the U.S. to have land mines. Frankly, if land mines mean that my son and my friends will come home, then I say lay as many as necessary.

The difference here, AUP, is that we generally send in personnel to remove our mines, while other forces do not. I've met people who worked on U.S. Government contracts removing these weapons. (Believe me, they get paid VERY WELL. Almost makes me want to take an EOD course and sign on.)

(2.) I'd rather see the U.S. maintain Guantanamo Bay. Once Castro is gone, it will make a good starting point for American Aid to rebuild Cuba.

(3.) Referring back to my first point, the U.S. has hired companies to locate unexploded ordnance, and remove it. I see no evidence that we won't do this in the future.

While I was stationed in Germany, we occasionally heard about unexploded ordnance being found in the weirdest of places, both Axis and Allied, including once in the middle of an American housing area. Pretty scary stuff. But that's the sort of thing you find in areas where wars have been fought. There's not a lot you can do about it, except try to go in and remove it once you've got evidence it's there.

What would you suggest, AUP? Should we bill the remaining shareholders of the I.G. Farben Company for the fuses of Nazi bombs that didn't go off when they hit, as applied to the situation I just mentioned? Should we do the same thing to Aerojet General, for cluster bombs or missles that don't explode as they should?

Yes, it is the little things that count. I'm hopeful, though, we won't need to worry about that in the coming weeks. Every once in a while, I get a glimmer of hope in the news. It always fades, but I still cling to the hope that family and friends can be on the next flight home.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


(1.) You can't be so naive as to believe that there's no need for the U.S. to have land mines. Frankly, if land mines mean that my son and my friends will come home, then I say lay as many as necessary.



while they might be handy, are they necessary?



The difference here, AUP, is that we generally send in personnel to remove our mines, while other forces do not. I've met people who worked on U.S. Government contracts removing these weapons. (Believe me, they get paid VERY WELL. Almost makes me want to take an EOD course and sign on.)



And sometimes not. And even if they an area is cleaned, not all of them are found. Have they finished cleaning up vietnam yet?



(2.) I'd rather see the U.S. maintain Guantanamo Bay. Once Castro is gone, it will make a good starting point for American Aid to rebuild Cuba.



And what do the cubans think of that?



(3.) Referring back to my first point, the U.S. has hired companies to locate unexploded ordnance, and remove it. I see no evidence that we won't do this in the future.

While I was stationed in Germany, we occasionally heard about unexploded ordnance being found in the weirdest of places, both Axis and Allied, including once in the middle of an American housing area. Pretty scary stuff. But that's the sort of thing you find in areas where wars have been fought. There's not a lot you can do about it, except try to go in and remove it once you've got evidence it's there.

What would you suggest, AUP? Should we bill the remaining shareholders of the I.G. Farben Company for the fuses of Nazi bombs that didn't go off when they hit, as applied to the situation I just mentioned? Should we do the same thing to Aerojet General, for cluster bombs or missles that don't explode as they should?

Yes, it is the little things that count. I'm hopeful, though, we won't need to worry about that in the coming weeks. Every once in a while, I get a glimmer of hope in the news. It always fades, but I still cling to the hope that family and friends can be on the next flight home.

So why can't they at least make a better fuse for the cluster bomb? According to Human Rights Watch, about ten percent fail to go off. When the bomb is dropped, 90% going off is enough to do the job, I suppose. What about the 10% left that maim civilians?

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


while they might be handy, are they necessary?

Better than us placing personnel, civilian and military, at risk.



And sometimes not. And even if they an area is cleaned, not all of them are found. Have they finished cleaning up vietnam yet?

The U.S. wasn't the only force placing mines.



And what do the cubans think of that?

Which Cubans? Those in Miami, or those in Cuba itself? How can we ask at this point and get an honest answer?


So why can't they at least make a better fuse for the cluster bomb? According to Human Rights Watch, about ten percent fail to go off. When the bomb is dropped, 90% going off is enough to do the job, I suppose. What about the 10% left that maim civilians?

That's why we send in EOD personnel to look for them, usually with such personnel under fire themselves. That's one of the reasons they get paid so well.

(Sorry, tried to get this post to separate AUP's comments from mine. Didn't work. I hate being a newbie...)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Roadtoad


That's why we send in EOD personnel to look for them, usually with such personnel under fire themselves. That's one of the reasons they get paid so well.

(Sorry, tried to get this post to separate AUP's comments from mine. Didn't work. I hate being a newbie...)

Sorry...Damn hard not to laugh at that one.....so you are saying that US forces pick up after themselves? When a cluster bomb armed aircraft is cruising around for targets of opportunity do you imagine someone goes back later to pick up the duds???. I would believe they would clean areas they wanted to use themselves after a battle, but that is not the point with this diabolical problem with clusterbombs. You designed them, they are defective, they kill and maim civilians....Three facts, get over it and agitate your government to do something about it. You may as well be dropping poisoned candy bars......same effect.

[LillyThePink]

Luke - while my assertion may have offended you, I think you should read what I actually type and not what you want to attack. I specifically stated ALLIED troops, not the US military with regards my human life remarks. Please be clear about what I am actually saying before you attack it. Thanks

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by LillyThePink:
ummm yes I do remember - so you're standing by George's "who ever funds blah blah whoever harbours blah blah" ?

Coz if so, you all need to bomb the Irish Catholics in NY for funding the IRA for fricking years before you start on anyone overseas.

The role played by American money in funding the IRA is exagerrated. The IRA still had to rely on drugdealing and bank robbery, as well as support from the likes of Colonel Ghaddafi to fund their campaign of terror. In any case a distinction should be made between the actions of regimes and governments and the actions of individuals.

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
In any case a distinction should be made between the actions of regimes and governments and the actions of individuals.

So we shouldn't have gone after the Taliban??

:confused: Sauce for the goose?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by LillyThePink:

So we shouldn't have gone after the Taliban??

:confused: Sauce for the goose?

Erm, the Taliban regime did indeed harbour and support terrorism, os military action was justifiable. Your point being? :confused:

Originally posted by LillyThePink
Luke - while my assertion may have offended you, I think you should read what I actually type and not what you want to attack. I specifically stated ALLIED troops, not the US military with regards my human life remarks. Please be clear about what I am actually saying before you attack it. Thanks

Okay. So which Allied troops have no regard for human life, Lilly?

Originally posted by a_unique_person

And what do the cubans think of that?


I would bet every cent I make for the rest of my life that the majority of the Cuban people would welcome us with open arms and great relief.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by The Fool


Sorry...Damn hard not to laugh at that one.....so you are saying that US forces pick up after themselves? When a cluster bomb armed aircraft is cruising around for targets of opportunity do you imagine someone goes back later to pick up the duds???. I would believe they would clean areas they wanted to use themselves after a battle, but that is not the point with this diabolical problem with clusterbombs. You designed them, they are defective, they kill and maim civilians....Three facts, get over it and agitate your government to do something about it. You may as well be dropping poisoned candy bars......same effect.

Actually, we've family friends living in Granite Bay, who get paid well to do just that. No, they don't get them all, (I wish like hell they could), but they get a lot of them. It's great in diplomatic circles; "Look, we go in and clean up after a fight! WE'RE GREAT PEOPLE!" (Yeah, I'm cynical about it.) It's PR, nothing more.

Worked with another guy who worked with Aerojet General, who told me the biggest problem with military hardware is it's all based on the lowest bidder, (or, as another book I read, whoever can pay the biggest kickback...).

You're right, we should be doing more. I'd rather not see cluster bombs used at all, if it comes right down to it. But I doubt I'll see that day come any time soon.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LukeT


I would bet every cent I make for the rest of my life that the majority of the Cuban people would welcome us with open arms and great relief.

bay of pigs didn't quite work out that way. either way, the lease is clearly an imperialistic relic of another age. what sort of lease is ever made that doesn't expire, or that the owner doesn't get the land back at some time.

Originally posted by a_unique_person


bay of pigs didn't quite work out that way. either way, the lease is clearly an imperialistic relic of another age. what sort of lease is ever made that doesn't expire, or that the owner doesn't get the land back at some time.

An ironclad one?

Too bad we don't have such negotiators around today to work out government contracts with civilian defense manufacturers. No more cost overruns, past deadlines, faulty cluster bombs....