Beautiful Babies Barbarically Murdered

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: BlueAjah

Absolutely! He cares SO much that he lobbed dozens of Tomohawks into civillian areas.....

Yes..."civilian areas".
Right...

Stupid lefties like you would have screamed murder if he lobbed teddy bears into children hospitals because their brown button noses bruise babies bottoms (oops...more special language...).

originally posted by: CranialSponge
"Beautiful babies"... so long as they stay in Syria.

But the minute they try to leave to seek safe sanctuary elsewhere, they suddenly become evil muslim refugee terrorists.

you nailed it

trump cares about the beautiful dead babies so much that is is going to make more of them.

care so much to drop bombs but not enough to allow refugees in...thats going too far.

this is all a big joke.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yeah. Too bad Congress didn't see it that way.

... nor did Mr. Trump, at the time.

a reply to: stolencar18

Why do they have to be BROWN teddy bears huh?

(Spoken in the same absurd tone as your post.)

OP, you're spot on.

Although I wouldn't refer to Trump's innate knack with NLP-seque tactics to be brilliant ... cunning though.

The death of Chief Petty Officer William Owens came after a chain of mishaps and misjudgments that plunged the elite commandos into a ferocious 50-minute firefight that also left three others wounded and a $75 million aircraft deliberately destroyed. There are allegations — which the Pentagon acknowledged on Wednesday night are most likely correct — that the mission also killed several civilians, including some children. The dead include, by the account of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born Qaeda leader who was killed in a targeted drone strike in 2011.

Mr. Trump on Sunday hailed his first counterterrorism operation as a success, claiming the commandos captured “important intelligence that will assist the U.S. in preventing terrorism against its citizens and people around the world.”

NYT - RAID In Yemen: Risky from the Start and Costly in the End

Indeed.

What was that about barbarians murdering babies again?

originally posted by: stolencar18

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: BlueAjah

Absolutely! He cares SO much that he lobbed dozens of Tomohawks into civillian areas.....

Yes..."civilian areas".
Right...

Stupid lefties like you would have screamed murder if he lobbed teddy bears into children hospitals because their brown button noses bruise babies bottoms (oops...more special language...).

Oh how adorable, yet another member of the Brain Trust who calls anyone who disagrees with their Dear Leader a Liberal because nobody in America can think for themselves or have an independent thought. How silly of me to think for myself in the new and overtly partisan 21st Century America. Enjoy a life blessed with copious willful ignorance.

The target was fine. It was in a relatively secluded area, only a couple of smaller towns nearby. I have no qualms with the target itself.

As far as Trump being outraged to the point of ordering the attack, I am baffled. When well over 10 times as many died to a similar attack during Obama's administration, he on more than one occasion called out Obama to not attack Syria - that it was pointless, would not benefit the U.S., and he had to have approval of the people. What changed? I doubt it was seeing pictures of injured or dead children.

I think he is in over his head. In pulling together a militaristic administration, these are the sorts of results you are going to get. Politically he is going to do what they advise. People thumping their chests about how the U.S. "proved" themselves as not being a country to cross is ludicrous. You are naive if you think this even mildly worried the real players in the world.

And what did it accomplish? You think it draws a line? Please.. this is not your junior high playground. That simplistic mindset doesn't govern the real world. They've already attacked the same town that was chemically attacked last week, albeit not with chem weapons. But I'm sure to the Syrians, dead is dead.

Do you recall the campaign promise by Trump in regards to ISIS? Well.. those 30 days to roll out his brilliant plan are past. And instead of a plan to defeat ISIS, we directly aided them by this attack in Syria. The whole point of our collusion with Russia was to defeat ISIS. Syria's government is a buffer to ISIS. So was Libya.. we all know how that turned out. We have created a rift in our campaign against ISIS with Russia. Yet Trump's militaristic staff didn't bother to get the approval of the people... they just attacked. There is a reason collectively it was decided to not interfere in the past. That reason hasn't changed. But apparently Trump and Co. are too smart to bother gathering consensus.. they want to look tough and I can only assume, scare smaller countries into behaving. I guarantee this had little to no effect on Russia, China, Iran, etc. You think they are shaking in their boots after this? Hilarious.

The only thing he has proven is he and his staff have a ready, shoot, aim mentality. This is -exactly- what I mentioned during the campaign, that I was worried about. Other countries will take advantage of this eager willingness to rush into conflict by Trump. We can't police the entire planet, nor should we try.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Dfairlite

One more leader using the 'think of the children' hook to excuse carnage. It's as old as dirt and gets dragged out most years.

It works well because we all despise people who are cruel to children. People who kill babies are the worst and *less than* human. Therefore none of us care when the *less thans* get bombed - it serves them right. Simultaneously, it's a great look for the brave leader who valiantly defends the lives of babies. We all identify with the humanity of saving young lives.

The Nazis said Jews ate their own babies and our propaganda said Germans stabbed babies with bayonets. As emotive as they are untrue.

So what the OP is saying is Trump has utilised a propaganda technique to superficially justify the bombing of the Syrian airfield. It's never really about 'the children' or the 'beautiful babies.' We can say that with 99% certainty because Coalition forces/Allies have been drone-striking and generally bombing for many years and have killed thousands of children and babies as 'collateral damage.' I imagine the Russians, Japanese and whoever else have used this technique too.

The words My Lai should be enough to shut anyone up, they dragged children into a ditch and shot them, raped the women, and garroted the men. Not one of the villagers fired on those soldiers.
Had it not been for a brave helicopter pilot who saw them and threatened to shoot all that unit there, all the villagers would have perished.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: and14263

ummm.
Because he cares about babies?

Yes, he cares about these babies so much that he's been fighting to ban these babies and their families coming from the U.S. to flee, and wants them to stay safely locked away in Syria so they can be gassed and bombed by terrorists and Syrian goverment forces.

Yes, his concern for infants and babies is touching, and his crocodile tears are so moving.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: and14263

ummm.
Because he cares about babies?

Yes, he cares about these babies so much that he's been fighting to ban these babies and their families coming from the U.S. to flee, and wants them to stay safely locked away in Syria so they can be gassed and bombed by terrorists and Syrian goverment forces.

Yes, his concern for infants and babies is touching, and his crocodile tears are so moving.

This.

Right here.

a reply to: smurfy

Mai Lai was a shocker.

Stand by for a controversial perspective...ahem...

I think what happened there was something that can happen when good men lose their bearings under the duress of war. Atrocities occur and are committed by isolated groups of soldiers. It's a conflict-thing that dehumanises the perpetrators as much as their victims. Red-lining PTSD.

Auschwitz guards, Abu Ghraib abuses, Idi Amin, the 'disappeared' under Pinochet's reign, Rwanda and Japan's U731. You know what I mean?

Responsibility lies more on the shoulders of the people who instigate the conflicts imo. No, I'm definitely not justifying Mai Lai or the other examples. People lost their sh*t and did despicable things to each other. I still believe it's down to the leaders' misuse of propaganda that created armed conflicts and did so on the premise of dehumanising the opposition.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Stand by for a controversial perspective...ahem...

It's not easy to discuss these things

I sometimes wonder if atrocities and this sort of thing aren't a form of denial mixed with post traumatic stress. I'm thinking of Tourette syndrome

I'm not going to be able to find the right words to describe what I'm thinking - obviously

It's almost like a complete loss of impulse control when a mind is confronted with something too horrible to contemplate, and neither fight or flight is possible. So a person embraces the one thing they want to reject

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

That's how I feel too.

Guys who'd be decent people on Civvy Street discover their inner monsters in conflicts. Not everyone can parse/compute the stresses and impacts of so much gore and fear. They break down and have to live with what they did. Many of them deserve compassion.

In contrast, the assholes who played the word game and put them there get to live on without the consequences.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Which means these things are in all of us

It's worth thinking about - how a healthy person can lose themselves in certain situations



ETA:

In contrast, the assholes who played the word game and put them there get to live on without the consequences.

What you said here seems especially relevant now. Word games - loss of meaning - crowd control

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Yeah, we're all susceptible and none of us can be sure we'd be principled under those extreme circumstances.

It's not the same for the back-room politicians who use conflict to demonstrate their authority. Sitting in war rooms lacks the visceral dimension experienced by guys who've lost friends in action.

Anyway, I'm getting out of my depth here and can't/shouldn't try to act like I even know what it's like. It's only opinion. If those who instigate wars/conflicts had to spend a few days on the front-line, there might be fewer wars/conflicts.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Who was it that said the only sane response to an insane situation is to go insane?

Or something like that ....

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: smurfy

Mai Lai was a shocker.

Stand by for a controversial perspective...ahem...

I think what happened there was something that can happen when good men lose their bearings under the duress of war. Atrocities occur and are committed by isolated groups of soldiers. It's a conflict-thing that dehumanises the perpetrators as much as their victims. Red-lining PTSD.

Auschwitz guards, Abu Ghraib abuses, Idi Amin, the 'disappeared' under Pinochet's reign, Rwanda and Japan's U731. You know what I mean?

Responsibility lies more on the shoulders of the people who instigate the conflicts imo. No, I'm definitely not justifying Mai Lai or the other examples. People lost their sh*t and did despicable things to each other. I still believe it's down to the leaders' misuse of propaganda that created armed conflicts and did so on the premise of dehumanising the opposition.

Couldn't agree more. And one thing has eld true over the ages: it all comes down to the quality, discipline, and morality of military commanders and superiors. When the chain and command structure break down, everyone breaks down, and then the worst of wars happened.

A good example would be the behavior of the Soviets towards occupied civilians vs The Western Allies of the U.S., Britain, and others. Sure, the Western Bloc powers had their armies committing a number of War crimes and acts of rape and looting against civilians, but no where near the levels that were seen in Soviet occupied territories. Its because the Western Allies maintained tighter disciplinary standards over their forces, and were quicker to punish and make examples of offenders, where as the Soviet commanders justified it and looked the other way, seeing it as a payback for Wehrmacht Atrocities against Russian civilians.

It all comes down to the strength and moral direction of the leadership.

a reply to: peter vlar

Civilian areas? Wow what kind of cililians live on an airbase. They must have balls.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Yeah, we're all susceptible and none of us can be sure we'd be principled under those extreme circumstances.

It's not the same for the back-room politicians who use conflict to demonstrate their authority. Sitting in war rooms lacks the visceral dimension experienced by guys who've lost friends in action.

Anyway, I'm getting out of my depth here and can't/shouldn't try to act like I even know what it's like. It's only opinion. If those who instigate wars/conflicts had to spend a few days on the front-line, there might be fewer wars/conflicts.

That was my point in making that post. I did make it somewhat unfinished, as I did think it was something that was in the history books, and didn't want to dwell on it, but it was the politicos and the military big cheeses who really are politicos themselves at the end of the day. So here was the reality, 500 villagers were killed, the story might never have came out, but one soldier, (not involved) heard about it, and lobbied Nixon, and Capitol Hill and was ignored....the military said nothing at home. He, finally went to the press. That and only that is how people found out, and only then was something done. Out of the hundred in that unit, 14 were charged or more correctly 14 officers were charged out of a reccommended 28, so perhaps it went a little higher that just the unit, however only one was sentenced, that being to a life term, later greatly reduced. and no big brass ever got their nails dirty, even though that soldier said his killings were acted under orders, and in fact he was charged and found guilty of premeditated murder. There are probably a lot of other things under the radar in that 'incident', like the drugs prevalent at the time, and it bothers me that the exact same drugs have been reproduced and are being used by IS fighters today, even though the German company that made them has long ago ceased in their production.
Of course I understand that a war zone is like no other, and that very few of us know how we would react or fare for that matter, but still, we don't know all that is going on, but at the end of the day, no matter what thus far, all our trust is built into our elected peoples, and our military, and our so called secret services, none of which you can trust further than somebody can toss a caber....while the biggest weapon of all, is still propaganda born of rhetoric.
I wish I were somewhere else, but the mind also tells you, that we are all being messed with, all of the time, paid for by us.