Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla

[Luna Tick]

We bomb other countries. We have drones that kill innocent people automatically. It's in an attempt to get terrorists, but we end up killing innocents. Then when we express outrage over an atrocity committed by another country, we look like such incredible hypocrites. I don't care which party is in power. This should stop. I would be here with the same objections if Bush Jr. were still president and if it were Condoleezza Rice expressing the outrage. We're outraged? Give me a break.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Saturday condemned the "atrocity" of the deaths of 92 people in the Syrian town of Houla, joining global calls for world action to end the bloodshed.
Clinton said the United States would work with its international allies to increase the pressure on President Bashar al-Assad and his "cronies" after the reported massacre, saying their "rule by murder and fear must come to an end."
"The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms yesterday's massacre in the Syrian village of Houla," Clinton said in a statement released by her spokeswoman.
The UN mission said 92 bodies, 32 of them children aged less than 10, had been counted in the central Syrian town of Houla after reports of an artillery bombardment by Assad's forces.

[continued]

Full Article:
Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla - Yahoo! News

 

[CriticalThought]

Um...so we should be silent on atrocities committed in other countries?

 

[Luna Tick]

Um...so we should be silent on atrocities committed in other countries?

We should clean up our own act.

 

[RDS]

Before anything she has to say something as Secretary of State to keep her job.

 

[CriticalThought]

We should clean up our own act.

Might as well be wishing for a perfect world. It is easy to complain that we are not a perfect society. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out atrocity when it occurs. If that is hypocritical then so be it. Better to be hypocrites than apathetic to the suffering of others.

 

[Luna Tick]

Might as well be wishing for a perfect world. It is easy to complain that we are not a perfect society. I don't see anything wrong with pointing out atrocity when it occurs. If that is hypocritical then so be it. Better to be hypocrites than apathetic to the suffering of others.

We can talk all we want, but no one's going to take us seriously. Couldn't you just hear people in other countries scoffing at Clinton's remarks? I could. We'll never have a perfect world, but a good start would be for us to stop the drone strikes that are killing innocent people. We could quit meddling in the affairs of foreign nations and quit being so hasty to engage in military action. Then when we say we're shocked by something, maybe it will have meaning. As it stands now, it has about as much meaning as Mexico complaining about corruption in our government or about our poverty rates.

 

[iguanaman]

We bomb other countries. We have drones that kill innocent people automatically. It's in an attempt to get terrorists, but we end up killing innocents. Then when we express outrage over an atrocity committed by another country, we look like such incredible hypocrites. I don't care which party is in power. This should stop. I would be here with the same objections if Bush Jr. were still president and if it were Condoleezza Rice expressing the outrage. We're outraged? Give me a break.



Full Article:
Clinton condemns Syria 'atrocity' in Houla - Yahoo! News

Didn't you post on the wrong website? This isn't "Jihad for dummies.com"
Would you rather we use "shock and awe" on our enemies instead lke GW Bush? Drop a schoolbus full of high explosives on villages?
What would you have us do to counter the threat from Alqeada? Put 100's of thousands of targets on the ground for IED's to kill and maim us?
Drones are the most EFFECTIVE way to get rid of those vermin with minimal collateral damage. Don't believe everything you hear on Aljazzara. If people aren't a threat to us we won't waste our time.

 

[Luna Tick]

Didn't you post on the wrong website? This isn't "Jihad for dummies.com"
Would you rather we use "shock and awe" on our enemies instead lke GW Bush? Drop a schoolbus full of high explosives on villages?
What would you have us do to counter the threat from Alqeada? Put 100's of thousands of targets on the ground for IED's to kill and maim us?
Drones are the most EFFECTIVE way to get rid of those vermin with minimal collateral damage. Don't believe everything you hear on Aljazzara. If people aren't a threat to us we won't waste our time.

The drones are the best thing that ever happened for the terrorists. They should be thanking us for deploying them. We've killed a few of them, but those are acceptable losses to them. The real prize for them are the innocents that we've killed. That creates hatred of Americans and propaganda fodder for them. The drones are the most effective way to help al Quaida as much as humanly possible.

 

[donsutherland1]

We bomb other countries. We have drones that kill innocent people automatically. It's in an attempt to get terrorists, but we end up killing innocents. Then when we express outrage over an atrocity committed by another country, we look like such incredible hypocrites. I don't care which party is in power. This should stop. I would be here with the same objections if Bush Jr. were still president and if it were Condoleezza Rice expressing the outrage. We're outraged? Give me a break.

There's a big difference between civilian casualties inflicted from indiscriminate bombardment and those that occur when legitimate military objectives are targeted. Having said this, I do not believe the U.S. should intervene in Syria's civil war. I don't believe the U.S. should be choosing whether or not Syria has a minority Alawite government or a majority-led one. Finally, it wasn't too long ago that the other side in the conflict carried out an indiscriminate massive car bomb attack at a busy intersection in Damascus, claiming many civilian lives.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Do we know for sure the massive car bomb wasn't the Assad government? If Bush had started carpet-bombing liberal California, would Americans not hope that some other countries might speak out against it, even if they actually did nothing to stop it?

 

[Sarcogito]

Might as well be wishing for a perfect world. It is easy to complain that we are not a perfect society.

I don't think anyone is expecting us to be perfect. Just, you know, cut back a bit on the whole blowing up brown people by remote control.

 

[Medusa]

Clinton should understand that it is not her business..

 

[Mr. Invisible]

There's a big difference between civilian casualties inflicted from indiscriminate bombardment and those that occur when legitimate military objectives are targeted. Having said this, I do not believe the U.S. should intervene in Syria's civil war. I don't believe the U.S. should be choosing whether or not Syria has a minority Alawite government or a majority-led one. Finally, it wasn't too long ago that the other side in the conflict carried out an indiscriminate massive car bomb attack at a busy intersection in Damascus, claiming many civilian lives.

I entirely agree with the bolded, but I must bring up the fact that the US and its allies have been intervening in the civil war by supporting the rebels. (See this, this, and this.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Enemies of the U.S. exist, the Jihad is indeed very real, yet they have become clever enough to not align themselves with any particular nation (directly), and many seem fine with this "arrangement". Take the 9/11 attack as an example, it was carried out using personnel from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen, yet the U.S. response was to invade Afghanistan (the location of one of its tiny 'training camps'), stay for over a decade, and likely remain there indefinitely, just as we have in Europe, and Asia after WWII and the Korean "war". The 9/11 attacks resulted in millions of 'moderate' Islamic supporters cheering in the streets in virtually all "Islamic" nations.

To assert that drone strikes, or any other U.S. action caused the Jihad (or 9/11 attacks), or continue to fuel it is foolish. The "cause" of the Jihad is the competition of ANY western (non-muslim) ideals being introduced into ANY nation of Islamic majority, including our support of Israel in 'the region'. Use of intel, special ops and drones is a very effective way to fight a "war on terror" without the need for nearly as many "civilian" casualties as the Afghanistan style "mock invasions" cause, and for far less costs, politcally or militarily.

The U.S. essentially has three choices to approach the "war on terror": 1) ignore it, as you seem to propose, and hope that it simply goes away 2) Acknowledge it as a true Jihad, a universal holy war with all of Islam, and conquer and occupy any and all nations that show support for (supply arms, money, personnel or cheer for it) any of this madness 3) use intel, special ops, drones and support trusted local opposition forces that assist us and eleiminate the leadership (as we choose to define them) anywhere in the world that we so choose, on a case by case basis.

To assert that the U.S. has no standing to make diplomatic statements, or to express opinions as to the 'rights' of foreign gov'ts to engage in the wholesale slaughter of a villiage that includes any that express dissent for the current dictator in charge is insane.

 

[donsutherland1]

I entirely agree with the bolded, but I must bring up the fact that the US and its allies have been intervening in the civil war by supporting the rebels.

I'm aware of that and disagree with it. No U.S. interests or the interests of key allies justify the current extent of intervention by the U.S. Most definitely, they don't warrant the kind of military intervention some prominent members of the U.S. Senate have called for on occasion.

 

[Luna Tick]

Sure, we have the right to say what we want. I didn't say we didn't. What I said is we won't be taken seriously thanks to our incredibly hypocritical polices. We attack countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and we kill brown people. We illegally intern people with no right to be charged or to an attorney. We torture people and sexually assault brown POWs. We fly drones that kill innocent civilians. Then when another country commits an atrocity on a much smaller scale than what we've done, we point the finger saying, "Look how evil they are." Sure, we have the right to say it, but don't be shocked when people in other countries roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, right, America." Our own policies undermine our influence.

The best thing we could do to stop terrorism would be to stop being terrorists ourselves. Look at it this way. Imagine we're not the superpower we are. We're the fledgling agricultural nation that we once were. Instead, Iran is the super power with military bases all over the world and they've supported people who've killed Americans. A small group of Americans who hate Iran crash some planes into a big office building in Iran, killing thousands. It's not an action authorized by the US government. It's just some citizens who hate Iran. Then Iran bombs us, killing thousands of Americans who had nothing to do with the criminal attack. Then they fly drones throughout our country in an attempt to take out American "terrorists," but they end up hitting civilians. A bomb comes down and blows up your daughter, splattering her brains right in front of you. Then an American "terrorist" organization or "freedom fighters" as they prefer to be called claims that Iran is evil and should be destroyed. Iran claims it's just fighting back. Who are you gonna believe?

 

[donsutherland1]

What I said is we won't be taken seriously thanks to our incredibly hypocritical polices.

As noted earlier, there's a big difference between cases of indiscriminate bombardment and cases where civilian casualties occur when military objectives are targeted. Under international law, deliberate targeting of civilians and indiscriminate bombardment are illegal. Military objectives can legitimately be targeted except when expected harm to civilians is excessive relative to the military advantage that is expected.

Clearly, U.S. enemies won't respect the nuances of international law nor will they recognize such nuances when conducting their propaganda campaign against the U.S. They'll continue to paint with as broad a brush as possible. They'll engage in moral equivocation.

To date, the U.S. still lacks a robust public relations strategy for dealing with such matters. I also believe the U.S. diplomatic apparatus is underemphasized. Although it is unrealistic to expect that every U.S. Administration will be able to call upon Secretaries of State of a caliber of a Dean Acheson or Henry Kissinger, I believe there is more that the U.S. can and should do to strengthen its diplomacy.

At the same time, the U.S. military, like any other military force, should do what it can to minimize civilian casualties. That's not necessarily an easy task, especially when enemy combatants mask themselves as civilians (illegal under international law) or operate in close proximity to civilians (this de facto "human shielding" is also illegal under international law).

IMO, the historic experience should play a much larger role in planning. In other words, one should take data from past operations and compare actual civilian casualties with expected civilian casualties. That data should then be used to adjust expectations for operations going forward. For example, let's say the ratio is 2.5, meaning that for every expected civilian casualty, there were actually 2.5. Then, let's say a strike on a military target is considered and it is expected by commanders to result in 6 civilian casualties. The expected figure would be adjusted to 15. If 15 is considered excessive relative to the expected military advantage, then the attack should not be carried out.

 

[Luna Tick]

As noted earlier, there's a big difference between cases of indiscriminate bombardment and cases where civilian casualties occur when military objectives are targeted. Under international law, deliberate targeting of civilians and indiscriminate bombardment are illegal. Military objectives can legitimately be targeted except when expected harm to civilians is excessive relative to the military advantage that is expected...

I understand that there's a difference. However, if it's your son or daughter or husband or wife that gets killed via so-called collateral damage, I'd doubt that it would make much difference to you. We end up shooting ourselves in the foot with these military actions and it ends up just giving more propaganda fodder to the terrorists. It's hurting us way more than it's helping us.

 

[Mya]

In Syria the atrocities are done by the Government, on purpose.

In the case of " collateral deaths " these are not done deliberately by american troops.

 

[Connery]

We bomb other countries. We have drones that kill innocent people automatically. It's in an attempt to get terrorists, but we end up killing innocents. Then when we express outrage over an atrocity committed by another country, we look like such incredible hypocrites. I don't care which party is in power. This should stop. I would be here with the same objections if Bush Jr. were still president and if it were Condoleezza Rice expressing the outrage. We're outraged? Give me a break.

The US must stand firm. There are more considerations than what collateral casualties the US may have caused. Russia has stood firm in it's support of Assad. Indeed, "Russia insisted explicit references to Syrian armed forces being responsible for the latest bloodshed be dropped...."Russia said knife wounds on some victims reflected the techniques of his opponents."


For the US or Clinton to remain silent is to give the appearance that this bloodshed is condoned or at least tolerated by the US and would be extremely irresponsible and smack of a breach of trust in the international community.

Syrian Carnage Fails to Budge Russia From Mideast Ally - Bloomberg

 

[dontworrybehappy]

The fact that the OP compares accidental civilian casualties from ongoing war operations to intentional civilian attacks by terrorist groups and others in Syria makes me want to spit up my shake-n-bake chicken.

 

[Luna Tick]

In Syria the atrocities are done by the Government, on purpose.

In the case of " collateral deaths " these are not done deliberately by american troops.

Was the waterboarding torture and the sexual humiliation at Abu Graib something we did on accident also?

 

[Mya]

Was the waterboarding torture and the sexual humiliation at Abu Graib something we did on accident also?

Lets not get too naive. In warfare infinitely worse incidents than Abu Graib happen!

How can you realistically compare that with these incidents in Syria! There is no direct comparison.

 

[Medusa]

In Syria the atrocities are done by the Government, on purpose.

In the case of " collateral deaths " these are not done deliberately by american troops.

the rebels are being supported by american goverment ,mya ,everybody in the middle east knows that .))

 

[Connery]

the rebels are being supported by american goverment ,mya ,everybody in the middle east knows that .))

While that is true these killings are attributed to the Assad military, not the rebels, by the UN . "UN officials said more than 100 Syrians were killed in what may be the worst atrocity in the 14-month conflict, and they said evidence of artillery and tank shelling indicate that forces under President Bashar al-Assad were to blame."
Syrian Carnage Fails to Budge Russia From Mideast Ally - Bloomberg