• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amnesty International says U.S.-led coalition destroyed Syrian city

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,525
Reaction score
19,318
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From the CBC

Amnesty International says U.S.-led coalition destroyed Syrian city
​

An international human rights group on Tuesday accused the U.S. and its allies of showing little regard for civilians' lives while attacking the Syrian city that was once the de-facto capital of ISIS, an allegation denied by the U.S. military.

Amnesty International said the U.S.-led coalition's 2017 assault on Raqqa killed hundreds of civilians and reduced sections of the city to rubble.
Researchers for Amnesty interviewed more than 100 residents and visited 42 coalition targets in the city in a two-week period in February.

They published their findings in the report "War of Annihilation," in a reference to the language used by U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis in the lead-up to the campaign.

"When so many civilians are killed in attack after attack, something is clearly wrong," said Donatella Rovera, one of the researchers who visited the city.

COMMENT:-

Does "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." have a familiar ring to it?

In any event, the follow-up to this story might prove interesting (when it happens [in 20 or 30 years]).
​
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From the CBC

Amnesty International says U.S.-led coalition destroyed Syrian city
​

An international human rights group on Tuesday accused the U.S. and its allies of showing little regard for civilians' lives while attacking the Syrian city that was once the de-facto capital of ISIS, an allegation denied by the U.S. military.

Amnesty International said the U.S.-led coalition's 2017 assault on Raqqa killed hundreds of civilians and reduced sections of the city to rubble.
Researchers for Amnesty interviewed more than 100 residents and visited 42 coalition targets in the city in a two-week period in February.

They published their findings in the report "War of Annihilation," in a reference to the language used by U.S. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis in the lead-up to the campaign.

"When so many civilians are killed in attack after attack, something is clearly wrong," said Donatella Rovera, one of the researchers who visited the city.

COMMENT:-

Does "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." have a familiar ring to it?

In any event, the follow-up to this story might prove interesting (when it happens [in 20 or 30 years]).
​
Click to expand...

I wonder how the Allies' sweep across Europe toward Germany would be seen through today's PC lens?
 
stevecanuck said:
I wonder how the Allies' sweep across Europe toward Germany would be seen through today's PC lens?
Click to expand...

WW2 was a major moral struggle, and ultimate abandonment. At the beginning of the war, bombing of towns and cities was considered taboo. By the end of the war, well...Hiroshima. The world changed a lot in that war.

But when it started, it wasn't considered "PC" to avoid civilian casualties. It was considered a matter of honor and integrity.
 


:elephantf:usflag2:
 
stevecanuck said:
I wonder how the Allies' sweep across Europe toward Germany would be seen through today's PC lens?
Click to expand...

Why wonder, there are a whole lot of places where you can go to see the methods used being condemned.

Asking, "I wonder how slavery would be seen through today's PC lens?" makes just as much sense.
 
Harshaw said:
Not really, considering nobody actually said it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely positively 120% correct.

The actual quote was

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.".​

The statement was made by a United States Army major in 1968 (I believe) and he was talking about the decision by allied (read as "American") commanders to bomb and shell Bến Tre( regardless of civilian casualties) to "rout the Vietcong".

Thank you for correcting my absolutely unforgivable error.

After all, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." and "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common.
 
Utility Man said:


:elephantf:usflag2:
Click to expand...


You do realize that "collective punishment" is illegal under the laws of war and so is killing "hostages".

I say "you" because it is perfectly obvious that Mr. Trump is NOT aware of those things.

PS - If you agree that Mr. Trump's proposed "solution" is appropriate, then you must also agree that it is appropriate for "the terrorists" to target the families of America's leaders and soldiers - assuming that you aren't two-faced on the matter. Do you? I know that Mr. Trump doesn't.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Absolutely positively 120% correct.

The actual quote was

"It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.".​

The statement was made by a United States Army major in 1968 (I believe) and he was talking about the decision by allied (read as "American") commanders to bomb and shell Bến Tre( regardless of civilian casualties) to "rout the Vietcong".

Thank you for correcting my absolutely unforgivable error.

After all, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." and "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it." have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common.
Click to expand...

Dude. Nobody in this situation said it. That someone said it 50 years ago is completely meaningless.

But sure, take every little quote which sounds bad from the entire history of the United States Army and make it seem like it's current doctrine. You're right -- the entire US military is patterned on the mold of Lt. Calley. :roll:
 
Harshaw said:
Dude. Nobody in this situation said it.
Click to expand...

What I actually said was "Does "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." have a familiar ring to it?".

Harshaw said:
That someone said it 50 years ago is completely meaningless.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you look up the meaning of the word "familiar".

Harshaw said:
But sure, take every little quote which sounds bad from the entire history of the United States Army and make it seem like it's current doctrine.
Click to expand...

It wasn't "doctrine" then, and it isn't "doctrine" now.

Whether it was "what was actually done" then is a different matter from whether it was "doctrine" then.

Whether it was "what was actually done" now is a different matter from whether it is "doctrine" now.

Harshaw said:
You're right -- the entire US military is patterned on the mold of Lt. Calley. :roll:
Click to expand...

If there is one bad apple in the barrel, all that you can conclude is that there is one bad apple in the barrel.

FYI - There was a whole lot of crap to go around at Mai Lai, but shooting (and ordering the shooting of) prisoners (including children and infants) who were huddled in a ditch pretty much qualifies as "unacceptable behaviour" in most of the civilized world. I appreciate that your opinion may differ (as long as the shooters are Americans and the shootees aren't).

PS - My name is not "Dude". In fact I have never been on a "dude ranch" in my entire life.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
What I actually said was "Does "We had to destroy the village in order to save it." have a familiar ring to it?".



I suggest that you look up the meaning of the word "familiar".



It wasn't "doctrine" then, and it isn't "doctrine" now.

Whether it was "what was actually done" then is a different matter from whether it was "doctrine" then.

Whether it was "what was actually done" now is a different matter from whether it is "doctrine" now.



If there is one bad apple in the barrel, all that you can conclude is that there is one bad apple in the barrel.

FYI - There was a whole lot of crap to go around at Mai Lai, but shooting (and ordering the shooting of) prisoners (including children and infants) who were huddled in a ditch pretty much qualifies as "unacceptable behaviour" in most of the civilized world. I appreciate that your opinion may differ (as long as the shooters are Americans and the shootees aren't).

PS - My name is not "Dude". In fact I have never been on a "dude ranch" in my entire life.
Click to expand...

Dude, this argument doesn't make any sense. When you say "does X have a familiar ring to it," it's normally because someone said something now which resembles what someone said before.

So, someone making a statement 50 years ago has what to do with anything NOW?

Especially as you say you can only conclude that one bad apple means there's one bad apple. What does that 50-year-old bad apple have to do with anything today?
 
Harshaw said:
Dude, this argument doesn't make any sense. When you say "does X have a familiar ring to it," it's normally because someone said something now which resembles what someone said before.

So, someone making a statement 50 years ago has what to do with anything NOW?

Especially as you say you can only conclude that one bad apple means there's one bad apple. What does that 50-year-old bad apple have to do with anything today?
Click to expand...

My apologies for overestimating your powers of abstract reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom