Tell me , how can it be that we can bomb citizens who did nothing

[blues90]

And this shit continues on and at the same time people rush to help the people of Haiti. I am not saying the people of Haiti should not be helped they absolutely should be.

I just cannot get my head around the hypocisy.

As americans we seem to have two different selections . kill at will and save the victims of a natural disaster when neither did a thing or had control of what happened to them.

So here we have Obama being praised for sending help to Haiti but he continues to keep the illegal wars going.

With all reason and rational and common sense applied I cannot see a difference.

Someone show me the difference. and please if your point is we are fighting terrorism , save it for someone brainwashed enough to buy that.

[leftstreet]

1. We're not killing citizens in Afghanistan, we're fighting al Qaeda

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Was thinking the same thing as I watched the news this pm.

Most of the government is not as bothered by cognitive dissonance as some of us are.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frog92969]

5. I think he's talking about the innocents who've been bombed within the last year.

Who do you think we should blame?

[FrenchieCat]

8. I'm not so simple as to blame President Obama....

But go ahead, and get your hate on.

[harkadog]

29. It is not a matter of hate it is accountability

He is Commander-in-Chief last time I looked.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. We're bombing the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

If you'd like to go to Afghanistan and ask the Taliban and Al Qaeda to kindly stay away from the various huts so that we may kill them without injuring or killing civilians, you're welcome to do so.

[anonymous171]

13. We are still killing lots of civilians in the process. The point still stands. nt

[Cicada]

17. Collateral deaths harm us more than our intended hits benefit us

Our press blocks images of the great many innocents we kill, but elsewhere the images are common. Seeing women, children, innocent men blown up, having family and neighbors killed and injured, leads to more new anti-US recruits than the small number of targets we correctly kill.

If our drones bombed apartment buildings in Sicilian neighborhoods because a mafia member affiliated with New York mobsters was suspected to live there - would that make the non mafia Sicilians more or less pro-American?

[frog92969]

6. I was pointing out to my daughter today...

how by slaughtering innocents, shrugging our shoulders and calling collateral damage,
our leaders have already shown the world how little they value human life.

Any aid we give anyone after that is rightly seen as a PR stunt.

But I'm glad the Haitians are getting help, whatever the motivation.

[Joe the Revelator]

7. Why do you we rush to help others when so many would gladly blow up our planes and buildings

that's the question I asked myself today. Then I gave another 20 dollars to the red cross.

[proteus_lives]

9. The duality of humankind.

It's a bitch.

[EFerrari]

10. Not to mention, it's largely as a result of our policy that Haiti

is as poor as it is in the first place.

Welcome to our fig leaf.

[anonymous171]

12. That's why I believe that the US is morally obligated to help that country

Same with all our other former/current banana republics throughout the region.

[anonymous171]

11. I don't like illegal wars but I don't see the hypocrisy.

[paulsby]

14. "as americans"?

like this doesn't happen in nearly every nation on earth that has bombing capability?

do we really need to recite the list?

the reality is in EVERY war (since bombs have existed), innocents have been bombed.

this is not uniquely american, for anybody who has looked at any military history.

[blues90]

27. No , it's not uniquely american yet as an american I can only

speak as an american , I can't speak for other countries or even judge them because of what we have done and allowed to be done as americans.

We are the only country that has bases all over the globe and the only country who used two atomic bombs on another country which killed mostly civilians.

[paulsby]

28. rubbish

nothing prevents metric assloads of europeans, south americans, etc from criticizing the US, so at least from a reciprocity basis, why can't an american "judge" other countries?

of course we can.

you can't criticize genocide in rwanda? of course you can. you can't criticize forced genital mutilation of young girls in various countries? of course you can. you can't criticize human rights abuses in china, to include acts against tibet and the tibetan peoples? of course you can. you can't criticize laws in parts of germany that allow suspicionless harassment of muslims entering mosques? of course you can. you can't criticize laws authorizing stoning people for adultery? of course you can.

iow, your post is wrong.

america has warts. true. so do lots of countries. you are just demonstrating reflexive anti-american sentiment, when you single one country out (the US) for criticism but say it's not warranted for you to criticize any other country.


hth

[Thothmes]

32. You mean the civilians

that built the tanks, aircraft, rifles, ammunition and grenades used by the Imperial Japanese Army to kill millions in China and hundreds of thousands in places like Burma, Sumatra, the Phillipines?

[Igel]

15. Because you don't distinguish betweens actions and intent.

It happens a lot when the other guy seemingly deserves no slack.

It saves time, as well, because then the thinking circuit doesn't have to kick in--you see/hear and react, instead of asking, "How could that be?" Well, as more than a rhetorical question.

It's like asking how an ambulance that runs down a little girl could be used to rescue somebody. It assumes that the cause and effect are linked by intent. Sometimes they're not--you can intend the action that led to the effect without intending the effect, or you could intend some other action entirely. English doesn't separate the two cleanly without being really, really careful. I don't know if any does.

[Codeine]

16. That's a very wise answer. nt

[stray cat]

18. Because simplistic thinking can't communicate complex real life realities?

[mmonk]

19. Haitians are not "evildoers" according to our government.

[lunatica]

20. It's like running smack into a wall face first isn't it?

It's more than hypocrisy. It's some very strange mental synaptic wiring that simply can't see the Universal Truths and how they're connected. Everything is a totally different issue where sometimes the disconnect is obvious. Personally I find it very frustrating to deal with.

[invictus]

21. Saving Haitians doesn't bring profits to the Military-Industrial Complex.

[raccoon]

22. And Haiti doesn't have oil. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. The "must get Al Qaeda before they get us" scaredy-cats (yes, scaredy-cats) don't understand is

that the whole Middle Eastern-Central Asian region is full of so-called "honor" cultures.

That includes not only killing women who violate social norms but also seeking revenge on whomever harms a member of your family. Every innocent civilian who gets killed has a huge clan of relatives who are now duty-bound to avenge them.

Furthermore, the Taliban began and have grown by taking in orphaned boys and raising them to be hardened fighters and Puritan police.

U.S. bombings are the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda and the Taliban have.

There would be no terrorism against the U.S. if the U.S. hadn't been meddling in the Middle East since oil was discovered there.

[dionysus]

24. well, terrorists certainly do exist, and there are extremists in that region, but i agree that

occupation isn't the way to go in this instance.

[TexasObserver]

25. Killing in the name of ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkuOAY-S6OY
RAGE

[Mari333]

26. yes, the news is very selective about covering atrocities

they ignore the atrocities on the ground in Afghanistan and the ones in Iraq, it is a BLACKOUT.
it is hypocritical as hell.

[Texasgal]

30. Ummm... I am an American

and I'm not KILLING anyone. Hell, I don't even own a FIREARM.

And yeah, I am gonna praise Obama for helping Haiti quickly... you guys would be jumping with venom has he waited!

[Bluerthanblue]

31. I think your answer lies in the phrase- "neither did a thing or had

control of what happened to them".

I was thinking about this myself, and it struck me that maybe mankind is addicted to war and violence because it IS something 'we' do control. Natural disasters are something that humans have little control over, and they are terrifying and completely random. Wars and military actions are humans making a choice to inflict violence on others, and somehow that kind of gives those who fall victim to man-created violence a lesser 'innocence' than those who meet 'natural' disasters. ?..

But even then, we find ways to blame the victims : for living in areas that are naturally dangerous, the building construction, not evacuating (Katrina),even when those 'reasons' are pretty unrealistic.

I hate WAR yet I still support Pres. Obama. It is possible disagree with him and still support and respect him. His actions toward the situation in Haiti have been excellent- His decision about how to get us out of Afghanistan isn't the one I would have wished he'd chosen, but neither is it one which relishes the death and destruction of 'innocents'.

How can one be against murder, yet for the 'death penalty'? How much more pre-meditated could you get than that?
Life is full of irrational contradictions.

:shrug: