Bush: "Innocent Women and Children"

Knowing that innocents will be killed by an "accident" you initiate yet moving ahead with that action is a very deliberate act. Knowing that innocents will die, yet willingly acting in a manner that leads to those deaths, is an act of murder. Cold, calculated, and rationalized away as collateral damage.

In a war that was unnecessary to begin with, so too were/are the "accidental" deaths of innocents.

Nice effort at performing like a trained monkey/Bush apologist.

Anyone who knows your posting on the killing of innocents by Israel knows that your argument is actually not about Bush, nor Iraq, nor the deaths of innocents...but rather it is all about your rationalization for the numerous and frequent "accidental" yet deliberate deaths by Israeli forces.

Willingly and deliberately killing what you consider a human shield, is still murder of an innocent.

Quote from dddooo:

I added one word to Bush's quote. He did not include that word in his sentence but it's obvious to any reasonable semi-intelligent person that that was what he meant.

Innocent civilians are always accidentally killed during wars, terrorists deliberately kill innocent civilians, not understanding the difference is stupidity, pretending not to understand the difference is demagoguery and intellectual dishonesty.

PS I am not a Bush supporter by any stretch of imagination.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
More...

Knowing that innocents will be killed by an "accident" you initiate yet moving ahead with that action is a very deliberate act. Knowing that innocents will die, yet willingly acting in a manner that leads to those deaths, is an act of murder. Cold, calculated, and rationalized away as collateral damage.
LOL, and based on this logic no commander of any army on the planet who during his career started a military offensive can ever criticize terrorists (or criminals) for killing innocent civilians, right?

In a war that was unnecessary to begin with, so too were/are the "accidental" deaths of innocents.
We're not discussing the war, silly, we're discussing the accusation of hypocrisy and whether it's hypocritical of a military leader/general/CinC etc to criticize terrorists. And I think if he did not order deliberate attacks on civilians it's not hypocritical, regardless of how absurd, unwise, counter-productive or illegal his other actions may have been.

rather it is all about your rationalization for the numerous and frequent "accidental" yet deliberate deaths by Israeli forces.
So you're against killing terrorists? I thought so.


Willingly and deliberately killing what you consider a human shield, is still murder of an innocent.
Not according to the Geneva convention which considers the use of human shields a war crime and makes those who use human shields responsible for what happens to these civilians, not those who pull the trigger. You support the Geneva convention, don't you troll?
 
Quote from dddooo:
More...

Knowing that innocents will be killed by an "accident" you initiate yet moving ahead with that action is a very deliberate act. Knowing that innocents will die, yet willingly acting in a manner that leads to those deaths, is an act of murder. Cold, calculated, and rationalized away as collateral damage.
LOL, and based on this logic no commander of any army on the planet who during his career started a military offensive can ever criticize terrorists (or criminals) for killing innocent civilians, right?

If in the case of the US, a preemptive
offensive war like the offensive war in Iraq by the US is going to be met with resistance. So why should they criticize those who are living under a forced military occupation? Tell me Israelis wouldn't do the same thing if they were invaded and occupied by a military force acting on a self righteous set of rules.



In a war that was unnecessary to begin with, so too were/are the "accidental" deaths of innocents.
We're not discussing the war, silly, we're discussing the accusation of hypocrisy and whether it's hypocritical of a military leader/general/CinC etc to criticize terrorists. And I think if he did not order deliberate attacks on civilians it's not hypocritical, regardless of how absurd, unwise, counter-productive or illegal his other actions may have been.

We are not discussing the war in which thousands of innocents have died due to the deliberate preemptive offensive by the US military?

Collateral damage resulting from a willing preemptive and unnecessary war is murder. We invaded a sovereign nation and deposed their government which has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives. We do so without any consequence for those actions which deliberately and knowing lead to the loss of lives of thousands?

If this were done to the US, once we defeated the invading force we would try the invading force for war crimes.

rather it is all about your rationalization for the numerous and frequent "accidental" yet deliberate deaths by Israeli forces.
So you're against killing terrorists? I thought so.

I am against killing, period.

Thou shalt not kill is pretty damn clear.

Willingly and deliberately killing what you consider a human shield, is still murder of an innocent.
Not according to the Geneva convention which considers the use of human shields a war crime and makes those who use human shields responsible for what happens to these civilians, not those who pull the trigger. You support the Geneva convention, don't you troll?

Say it is a war crime, does that empower Israel or others to rationalize executing people without due process?

The Geneva convention gives invading forces the right to execute people "accidentally" because they are thought to be human shields?

How can we preach justice when the US and countries like Israel kill and rationalize the killing, and act with impunity...as judge, jury, and executioner.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
More...

If in the case of the US, a preemptive offensive war like the offensive war in Iraq by the US is going to be met with resistance.
Confusing resistance with terrorism again?

So why should they criticize those who are living under a forced military occupation?
He criticized terrorism, i.e. attacks on innocent civilians and it was not hypocritical. It would have been hypocritical if Osama or your Hezbollah/Hamas friends criticized terrorism. Bush is a lot of things but terrorist he is not.

Tell me Israelis wouldn't do the same thing if they were invaded and occupied by a military force acting on a self righteous set of rules.
Of course not. Israelis would not be killing Israelis if they were occupied, the way Iraqis kill Iraqis, Palestinians kill Palestinians etc. Israelis would not be crashing planes into buildings in the US or blowing up trains and buses in the UK, Spain and India, would not be killing children and theater goers in Russia. Other than that you're right, they would resist the occupation.

We are not discussing the war in which thousands of innocents have died due to the deliberate preemptive offensive by the US military?
The overwhelming majority of them were actually killed by the terrorists that Bush criticized, not by american troops. And yes we're not discussing the war, we're discussing whether it's hypocritical for a war leader to criticize deliberate attacks on civilians.

Collateral damage resulting from a willing preemptive and unnecessary war is murder.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Very few people would agree with it though. The Nazis were not prosecuted for collateral damage during the Nuremberg trial, they were prosecuted for deliberate massacres.

I am against killing, period.
Self-righteousness is a disgusting trait in a person. Of course no one thinks you live in the real world where sometimes if you don't kill someone first he'll kill you and your dog (not necessarily in that order).

Thou shalt not kill is pretty damn clear.
Tell it to your muslim friends, they are doing most of the killing, even in Iraq.


Say it is a war crime, does that empower Israel or others to rationalize executing people without due process?
Yes. It's called the rule of war. Are you still mourning the death of Sheik Yassin?

The Geneva convention gives invading forces the right to execute people "accidentally" because they are thought to be human shields?
The Geneva convention does not consider the death of human shields executions and puts the blame squarely on those who use human shields. Shame on you for opposing international laws and the Geneva convention.
 
Imo all viewpoints are correct but the arguement seems to have become issues of reasonable reality vs literal concepts of inter changing the words "murder" and "kill" and the pointless arguement to assign a label "hypocrite" which one may debate all day but provides no outcome or solution.
 
Quote from Nick Leeson Jr:

You've made your point - Bush is a hypocrite, you've also made the point that the US (though its trigger happy soldiers) is responsible for all the dead civilians in Iraq.
More...

I'm not saying I necessarily believe the US is directly responsible for ALL the civilan deaths in Iraq ... it's complicated at this point. But certainly for a large number, yes.
 
Israel and Gaza

Human Rights Watch has reported that the Israel Defense Forces used Palestinian civilians as human shields during the 2002 Battle of Jenin.[1] The Israeli human-rights group B'Tselem reported that "for a long period of time following the outbreak of the second intifada, particularly during Operation Defensive Shield, in April 2002, the IDF systematically used Palestinian civilians as human shields, forcing them to carry out military actions which threatened their lives".[2] The practice was outlawed by the Supreme Court of Israel in 2005 but human rights groups claim the IDF continues to use it, although the number of instances reportedly has dropped sharply.[2][3]

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


http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/20060720_Human_Shields_in_Beit_Hanun.asp


http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/692EPS/$File/irrc_856_Otto.pdf

Quote from dddooo:

If in the case of the US, a preemptive offensive war like the offensive war in Iraq by the US is going to be met with resistance.
Confusing resistance with terrorism again?

So why should they criticize those who are living under a forced military occupation?
He criticized terrorism, i.e. attacks on innocent civilians and it was not hypocritical. It would have been hypocritical if Osama or your Hezbollah/Hamas friends criticized terrorism. Bush is a lot of things but terrorist he is not.

Tell me Israelis wouldn't do the same thing if they were invaded and occupied by a military force acting on a self righteous set of rules.
Of course not. Israelis would not be killing Israelis if they were occupied, the way Iraqis kill Iraqis, Palestinians kill Palestinians etc. Israelis would not be crashing planes into buildings in the US or blowing up trains and buses in the UK, Spain and India, would not be killing children and theater goers in Russia. Other than that you're right, they would resist the occupation.

We are not discussing the war in which thousands of innocents have died due to the deliberate preemptive offensive by the US military?
The overwhelming majority of them were actually killed by the terrorists that Bush criticized, not by american troops. And yes we're not discussing the war, we're discussing whether it's hypocritical for a war leader to criticize deliberate attacks on civilians.

Collateral damage resulting from a willing preemptive and unnecessary war is murder.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Very few people would agree with it though. The Nazis were not prosecuted for collateral damage during the Nuremberg trial, they were prosecuted for deliberate massacres.

I am against killing, period.
Self-righteousness is a disgusting trait in a person. Of course no one thinks you live in the real world where sometimes if you don't kill someone first he'll kill you and your dog (not necessarily in that order).

Thou shalt not kill is pretty damn clear.
Tell it to your muslim friends, they are doing most of the killing, even in Iraq.


Say it is a war crime, does that empower Israel or others to rationalize executing people without due process?
Yes. It's called the rule of war. Are you still mourning the death of Sheik Yassin?

The Geneva convention gives invading forces the right to execute people "accidentally" because they are thought to be human shields?
The Geneva convention does not consider the death of human shields executions and puts the blame squarely on those who use human shields. Shame on you for opposing international laws and the Geneva convention.
More...
 
Quote from dddooo:

Knowing that innocents will be killed by an "accident" you initiate yet moving ahead with that action is a very deliberate act. Knowing that innocents will die, yet willingly acting in a manner that leads to those deaths, is an act of murder. Cold, calculated, and rationalized away as collateral damage.
LOL, and based on this logic no commander of any army on the planet who during his career started a military offensive can ever criticize terrorists (or criminals) for killing innocent civilians, right?
More...

Obviously he can - Bush does ad nauseum. I don't think he should. Imagine being the parent of an Iraqi child killed or maimed in the war and hearing that.

Zzzzz is right - collateral deaths in a DELIBERATE war is deliberate killing on some level. If you don't think so then THAT, my friend, is intellectual dishonesty imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top