Article

2005-07-30 Home Front: WoT

A Voice from the "Can't We All Just Get Along" Crowd in LA

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Captain America 2005-07-30 02:55|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Yesterdays news, how many months has it been since a US plane droped a bomb (singular)? The left still thinks we are fighting with 1970's weapons and needlessly kill civilians. That the other guys, not us , except they target civilians and we don't have the need to. By the way their culture is backward and barbaric, even they realise that.

Posted by Sock Puppet 0â Doom 2005-07-30 03:05|| 2005-07-30 03:05|| Front Page Top

#2 Will to Live Quotient: -8.5

Posted by .com 2005-07-30 03:09|| 2005-07-30 03:09|| Front Page Top

#3 yes. mohammed atta and his colleagues had nowhere else to turn, so in their darkest desperation, they hijacked jets and flew them into the world trade center. that was payback for um, what? Oh yeah. not being muslim.

There IS a difference when civilian populations are targeted vs. when civilians die as a result of collateral damage. There is no moral equivalence No amount of rationalizing and excusing, like this a-hole is doing will change that.

Posted by PlanetDan">PlanetDan 2005-07-30 07:13|| 2005-07-30 07:13|| Front Page Top

#4 I am angered and sickened by the bombings here in London on July 7, but I am equally angered by the unthinking reactions in the United States and Britain to those disgusting attacks

There's the problem in a nutshell.

Posted by too true 2005-07-30 08:03|| 2005-07-30 08:03|| Front Page Top

#5 Few have noticed that suicide bombing is merely a tactic used by those who lack other means of delivering explosives. Fewer still seem to notice that what happened in London is what occurs every time a U.S. or British warplane unloads its bombs on an Iraqi village.

Bully for you for noticing. The fact is we are fighting illegal combatants and when a combatant illegal or otherwise, uses a villiage for storing ordnance or marshaling troops, it becomes a military target

But, you may say, our forces don't deliberately target civilians. Perhaps not. But they have
consistently shown themselves to be indifferent to the civilian casualties produced by their operations.

See the above. No one on our side has the orders to kill civilians, and I daresay that there is an emotional cost that is likely paid by pilots and riflemen. However the onus for civilian deaths, unavoidable civilian deaths, rests firmly in the hands of the targets, not the attacking side.

"Collateral damage" is the inevitable result of choosing to go to war. By making the choice to go to war in Iraq, we made the choice to kill tens of thousands of civilians. It does not matter to bereaved parents whether their child was killed deliberately, as the result of a utilitarian calculation of "the greater good," or of the callous indifference of officials from a distant power.

Actually in the "Palestinian" territories, we know for a fact that mothers of dead suicidal terrorists are proud of what their child has done. I got $10 that says it is Islamic culture wide that joy and pride are the emotions felt by parents of dead suicide murderers.

So, no sale. Next...

American and British media have devoted hours to wondering what would drive a seemingly normal young Muslim to destroy himself and others.

Those Muslims are part of a mysogenistic death cult is why. Our folks in our meda are too f*cxking dumb to come to that conclusion because of what I call "enforced stupidity.

No one has paused to ask what would cause a seemingly normal young Christian or Jew to strap himself into a warplane and drop bombs on a village, knowing full well his bombs will inevitably kill civilians (and, of course, soldiers).

The left seems to think that US pilots wake up, down some brekie, saddle up with an aircraft full of ordnace and on their way they ask each other, "Where's a villiage we can dump out bombs on. Another example of enforced stupidity.

Air raids are carefully planned according to the rules of war, the best intel available and vetted by military lawyerc. The bombs being carried to such military targets are precision, to reduce greatly the possibility of civilians deaths

Because "our" way of killing is dressed up in smart uniforms and shiny weapons and cloaked in the language of grand causes, we place it on a different moral plane than "theirs."

The west is indeed on a much, much higher moral plane than the enemies we seek to destroy. If you prefer to state your alliegence to those folks, you have that perfect right until you try to use that belief to kill others.

Posted by badanov 2005-07-30 09:46|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2005-07-30 09:46|| Front Page Top

#6 alot of civillians have died in most wars, its not pretty is it.

Posted by bk 2005-07-30 11:30|| 2005-07-30 11:30|| Front Page Top

#7 What I find fascinating is the left tends to be very oriented towards treaties and processes yet many seem really easy to rationalize away the Geneva Convention treaty as it applies to attacks against civilians and combatants out of uniform.

I mean treaties are great but they have to apply to everyone or they mean nothing!

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-07-30 12:14|| 2005-07-30 12:14|| Front Page Top

#8 This reads like every fifth Derrick Z. Jackson column, boiled down thusly - if there are any civilian casualties in a war, the war should not be fought.

Posted by Raj 2005-07-30 12:19|| 2005-07-30 12:19|| Front Page Top

#9 If only the left could convince the other side of that!

Posted by Bobby 2005-07-30 15:36|| 2005-07-30 15:36|| Front Page Top

#10 Badanov has admirably summarized the real facts contradicting this asshat's assertions. It falls to me to explain WHY asshats in general do this sort of thing. Yeah, it always gives me a headache to analyze the leftist liberal mind, but somebody's got to do the job. Here goes:

Here's my take: The guy, in this article, is not trying to destroy the current establishment in order to impose his own socialistic/communistic paradise. He's laying the groundwork for saving his hide when his glorious revolution fails while committing similar atrocities.

The liberals/leftists/communists have been LOSING in every objective and significant measure. Reluctant to admit defeat, they attempt a win by breaking the rules. No problem if they win: as the winners, they will ignore the rules if they are, in any way, an encumbrance.

The problem, of course, is if the cheating does not lead to a win. This can be a problem if there is no umpire, and the rules are enforced by the players themselves. The weaker side, having tried to cheat to win, and failing, now faces the prospect of a stronger opponent deciding not to play by the rules anymore.

"Few have noticed that suicide bombing is merely a tactic used by those who lack other means of delivering explosives."

Absolutely true. The implication is that, being weak, the weak should be cut MORE SLACK, even to the point of not having to face consequences when they decide to cheat.

The lefties are losing in a significant arenas and in most significant measures. They're feeling the heat. They feel the need to cheat, but fear the consequences? How better can one tell whether the consequences can be mitigated than by trying to stop your opponent from imposing consequences when someone else cheats?

This screed is an attempt to measure the power of the writer in deflecting consequences. He's a potential cheater wanting to see whether he can get away with cheating and reduce the downside of being discovered and dealt with by pleading an inherent "weakness" and "inability" to play fair. ONe can tell this because of his playing fast and loose with the facts, as demonstrated by badanov's comment: I.e. he's cheating.

The entire left's defense of Saddam after GW-I does not rest on any affection they have for Saddam: Rather, they forsee the need of a socialist country to invade another in the future, getting whupped, and needing a mechanism in place to limit consequences. Everything done for Saddam is a dry run to see if they can manipulate the west in order to prevent the imposition of total and unconditional surrender.

Similarly, everything being done by the left to mitigate the resentments and hatred of Islamist terrorism is not out of love for them: I am sure they know that the Islamist Umma would not be to their liking. Rather, they forsee the need to carry out terrorist operations in the future, and need a mechanism in place to limit consequences. What this asshat is doing is trying to put into place a mechanism to prevent the use of the war-fighting model, whose consequences for the offender cannot be managed as well as the consequences for being considered a mere criminal under the crime-fighting model.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2005-07-30 19:12|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2005-07-30 19:12|| Front Page Top

23:47 Jennie Taliaferro
23:47 PlanetDan
23:38 True German Ally
23:31 Jackal
23:27 Pappy
23:27 Jackal
23:26 Matt
23:25 Jackal
23:22 Jackal
23:20 Jackal
23:17 trailing wife
23:11 jules 2
23:03 CrazyFool
23:03 True German Ally
22:59 badanov
22:58 Pappy
22:53 Pappy
22:53 Bobby
22:53 trailing wife
22:51 Dave D.
22:51 True German Ally
22:42 trailing wife
22:40 True German Ally
22:37 Pappy