It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Many Civilians Does the U.S. Have to Kill Before It's Gulity of Genocide?

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
If America was practicing genocide, all the Atheists and the homosexuals and the non-believers would go first. Then all the people who aren't all white conservative Christians.




posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by learnatic
 


A related question:

How many nations who have little hope of ever being anything other than a hell hole does the US have to prop up only to have it further cascade in to misery? Egypt, Afganistan, looks like Syria next, who knows what the hell the US is doing in Africa, but we're most definately engaged. North Korea will get $billions in US aid when that regime tips over.

Does anyone in their right mind actually believe that Afganistan will ever be anything but a stone-age hell hole?

In our international interventions, we've merely been tossing out Hitlers and installing Stalins only to be surprised that Stalin is not much different than Hitler.

It is none of our business and they should be left alone or dealt with regional organizations like the Arab League and the African National Congress. We should not give any of them a dime, a drone, advice, intelligence, nothing.

I think Obama is an absolute disaster, yet had he immediately withdrawn from all of these absurd international interventions immediately, he would have my vote today. Yet, all he's done is doubled down on the idiotic, neocon Bush policies.

Obama is a serious, practicing neocon and that is a real disappointment. He had the mandate coming in, he had the honeymoon of being a new president with much affection afforded him by the public and he blew it.

Internationally, how is Obama any different than Dick Cheney, John Bolton, John McCain or any off the other neocons? In terms of actions he's exactly the same.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by learnatic

Originally posted by JBRiddle
People die in war. Wars are no longer fought on some distance battlefield where only the two opposing forces get killed. Wars are fought in Urban Areas that are usually highly populated. The United States Military avoids civilian casualties when ever possible, but sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The Military's Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan are total retarded simply because we try too hard to avoid civilian casualties. For example, US forces are taking fire from a house across the Valley. In the old days we'd call in Artillery or an Airstrike and blow the building and all in it to kingdom come and let God sort'em out. But that's not the way we do it today, you are only allowed to shoot when we see enemies with weapons in there hands.

So back to the building that were being shot form. A few minutes later out walk 3 guys with no weapons. Are these the people shooting at us? (expletive deleted) YES! Can we shoot them? (expletive deleted) no. Why? Because of out stupid rules of engagement.

Americans are dying because of these stupid rules and it only encourages the enemy to exploit these rules knowing our hands are tied.

Yes mistake happen but we never directly target civilians like some other countries do.


I respect your comments because it seems you have been in the miltiary and know of the complications that arise but your claim does not seem to be supported by Wikileacks video from Iraiq for eample. If its just a case of mistakes happen when the U.S kills civilians then why is also not this same case when its the Lybians or the Syrians do it?

I see Hilary Clintion and other world leaders incuding those of my own goverment and that of Israel scream genocide when 100 bodies are found in Syria.

In any event, I'd still like to know; how many civilians does the U.S need to kill before its gulity of genocide according to its own definition of the term???




The Wikileacks video you refer to was heavily edited, if you see the whole video you can't come to the same conclusion.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
i'd say around the time when the united states falls out of favor with the bank cartel/rothschild family. not anytime before that unfortunately. money controls the world and they have the money so even genocide in "excusable".



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by learnatic

Originally posted by JBRiddle

The United States is not deliberately or systematically targeting, in whole or in part, any ethnic, racial or religious groups or any one nationality.

(no reason given)


Given your definition of genocide above would you agree then that your government was wrong to accuse the Sysian regeime of genocide when 100 bodies were found recenty? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I have not heard it claimed that the Lybian or Syrian regeime were not deliberately or systematically targeting, in whole or in part, any ethnic, racial or religious groups or any one nationality in Lybia or Syria?

cheers

Did the Syrian Government or its affiliate's deliberately target these people? Yes or No? If yes then its Genocid, if not its not.

You could include political affiliation to the list as well. The government is deliberately and systematically killing anyone that is supporting the rebellion. In complete violation of Article Three of the Geneva Convention

Geneva Convention
www.icrc.org...



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sundreez
reply to post by learnatic
 


The accusation was made by the former Prime Minister of Syria, not the US.
www.middle-east-online.com...

Sounds more like mass murder ( the toll so far is about 14,000) not Genocide.


Fair enough, I stand corrected, thank you.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

To the OP - I suppose that number would have to be in the millions. As the world's watchdogs/attack dogs we are justified if we are protecting the BILLIONS. At least someone has rationalized it that way. We must protect global economic interests for the good of all.



edit on 19-8-2012 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)


I agree that the someone has rationalised it that way, I think thats why they tacidly take the view, draw the inference and imply that the U.S. is never gulity of genocide no matter what they do because they know whats best for the entire world but how dangerous are people who are so self deluded as that? Or, is it simply that such people are nut jobs and in fact have an unhinged mind.



posted on Aug, 19 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by learnatic
 


I don't have an answer to your question.

Let me ask one. How many Native Americans did we kill just in our own country?



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Whats most disturbing is its not a regional genocide as we've seen with all prior genocides but a *WORLDWIDE* systematic genocide that started with clearing the land to set up shop, that is moving incrementally onto clearing the earth for mass mining operations, as seen in the progression of Afghanistan in the past decade, as much of Afghanistan is now inhabitable due to infiltration of Uranium into the air, water, earth & gene pool.

Of course, the US is immune to international courts as exemplified thru its liberal use of DU which is otherwise an "illegal" WMD

Guilt is a non-issue when you have no conscience to begin with.


edit on 14-12-2012 by minnow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by learnatic


US Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Friday that the US "must lead the world in stopping Iran's genocidal regime from obtaining a nuclear weapons capability


There is a video floating around the internet in which it was put to former ambassador to Iraq Mandaline Albright that 50,00 kids were killed in Iraq as a result of the U.S led invasion and was the death of 50,000 kids worth it? The former ambassador relied 'yes it was."

My question is how many civilians does the U.S. have to kill before the U. S. is guilty of genocide?

Link to the article

cheers

edit on 19-8-2012 by learnatic because: shorten heading

edit on 19-8-2012 by learnatic because: (no reason given)


Maybe look up what the word means. Then if we ever decide to try and exterminate a particular group of people then we can have a debate.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join