Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Select Committee Hearing on January 6th riot

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    My apologies for the links - I forgot about comments.


    From here:https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

    The Tuskegee Timeline
    In 1932, the USPHS, working with the Tuskegee Institute, began a study to record the natural history of syphilis. It was originally called the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” (now referred to as the “USPHS Syphilis Study at Tuskegee”). The study initially involved 600 Black men – 399 with syphilis, 201 who did not have the disease. Participants’ informed consent was not collected. Researchers told the men they were being treated for “bad blood,” a local term used to describe several ailments, including syphilis, anemia, and fatigue. In exchange for taking part in the study, the men received free medical exams, free meals, and burial insurance.

    By 1943, penicillin was the treatment of choice for syphilis and becoming widely available, but the participants in the study were not offered treatment.


    From here: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/543.html
    1976: Government admits unauthorized sterilization of Indian Women
    A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office finds that 4 of the 12 Indian Health Service regions sterilized 3,406 American Indian women without their permission between 1973 and 1976. The GAO finds that 36 women under age 21 were sterilized during this period despite a court-ordered moratorium on sterilizations of women younger than 21.

    Two years earlier, an independent study by Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, Choctaw/Cherokee, found that one in four American Indian women had been sterilized without her consent. PInkerton-Uri’s research indicated that the Indian Health Service had “singled out full-blooded Indian women for sterilization procedures
    .”

    From here: https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2020/11/04/...sterilization/
    America’s Forgotten History of Forced Sterilization
    BY SANJANA MANJESHWAR ON NOVEMBER 4, 2020

    In early September, a nurse working at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Georgia came forward with shocking allegations of medical neglect and abuse, claiming that numerous involuntary hysterectomies (uterus removal surgeries) were performed on detained immigrant women. This allegation understandably evoked fury and outrage among the general public, with numerous people denouncing it as a human rights violation and yet another example of the current administration’s cruelty towards women and immigrants. Many people, including prominent liberal politicians and public figures, viewed it as something distinctly un-American and at odds with our country’s values — a common refrain that echoed in response to the allegation was “This isn’t the America I know.” There were countless comparisons to Nazi Germany and other totalitarian, human rights-abusing regimes, as well as a pervasive sense that the United States was engaging in a uniquely cruel and unprecedented act. Unfortunately, this is a misleading impression.

    While the allegations against ICE are undoubtedly horrific and must be investigated, they are not at all unprecedented or un-American — in fact, they are very American. The United States has a long, egregious, and largely unknown history of eugenics and forced sterilization, primarily directed towards poor women, disabled women, and women of color.


    From here: https://allthatsinteresting.com/us-government-radiation
    A recently released book details the experiments the US government undertook, over decades, on their own unknowing citizens to test the effects of radiation.

    The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a recently published book by Lisa Martino-Taylor, an associate professor of sociology at St. Louis Community College, reveals the experiments the US government conducted to determine the dangers of radioactivity on its own populace.

    In her newest book, Behind the Fog: How the U.S. Cold War Radiological Weapons Program Exposed Innocent Americans, Martino-Taylor details how unsuspecting American citizens were fed, sprayed, or injected with radioactive materials during a series of experiments from the 1940s to the late 1960s.

    Using previously unreleased documents, including Army records, that she obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, Martino-Taylor discovered that throughout these decades, researchers worked to develop radiological and “combination weapons,” weapons using radioactive materials along with chemical or biological weapons, by testing them on unknowing Americans.

    One example she cites is a 1940s experiment in Nashville, TN wherein 820 impoverished pregnant women were given a mixture that included radioactive iron during their first prenatal visit. These women were given the radioactive material without their knowledge and had their blood, and the blood of their babies, tested by scientists to determine how radioactive exposure during pregnancy effects babies.

    Similar tests were also performed in Chicago and San Francisco.

    “They targeted the most vulnerable in society in most cases,” Martino-Taylor said. “They targeted children. They targeted pregnant women in Nashville. People who were ill in hospitals. They targeted wards of the state. And they targeted minority populations.”


    From here: https://www.democracynow.org/2004/5/...es_how_the_u_s
    Denver-based journalist Eileen Welsome reveals how as a reporter for the tiny Albuquerque Tribune (circulation 35,000) she uncovered one of the country’s great Cold War secrets: the U.S. government had knowingly exposed thousands of human Guinea pigs with radiation poisoning including 18 Americans who had plutonium injected directly into their bloodstream. [includes rush transcript]

    In a Massachusetts school, seventy-three disabled children were spoon-fed oatmeal laced with radioactive isotopes.

    In an upstate New York hospital, an eighteen-year-old woman believing she was being treated for a pituitary disorder, was injected with plutonium.

    At a Tennessee clinic, 829 pregnant women were served “vitamin cocktails” containing radioactive iron, as part of their regular treatment.

    No these are not acts of terrorism by common criminals.

    These are just some of the secret human radiation experiments that the U.S. government conducted on unsuspecting Americans for decades as part of its atom bomb program.

    In a gruesome plot that spanned 30 years, doctors and scientists working with the US atomic weapons program, exposed thousands of unwilling and unknowing Americans to radiation poisoning to study its effects.

    For years, the experiments by the U.S. government and the identities of their human guinea pigs were covered up.



    And this:



    Pretty lousy whataboutism. As I said to Roy, you want to compare the above with what Hitler did? See: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...95#post1295795

    Comment


    • I wonder how the Democrat Investigation will differ from the FBI finding of Scant Evidence.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
        I wonder how the Democrat Investigation will differ from the FBI finding of Scant Evidence.
        They will undoubtedly continue practicing the Big Lie technique.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

          Pretty lousy whataboutism. As I said to Roy, you want to compare the above with what Hitler did? See: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...95#post1295795
          Those examples merely demonstrate the USA's murky history . Some atrocities perpetrated by the USA carried on for decades after WW2 .

          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            Those examples merely demonstrate the USA's murky history . Some atrocities perpetrated by the USA carried on for decades after WW2 .
            From whom do you think Imperial Japan learnt the proper way to deal with defeated enemies?
            1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
            Scripture before Tradition:
            but that won't prevent others from
            taking it upon themselves to deprive you
            of the right to call yourself Christian.

            ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

              From whom do you think Imperial Japan learnt the proper way to deal with defeated enemies?
              I am not sure what you mean by that remark. I know that in the late 19th century the British trained their navy. However, I understand that the Japanese warrior class had [to us] a somewhat brutal attitude towards defeat and/or surrender as well as the opprobrium of loss of honour [although I am prepared to be corrected on that].

              I do not think anyone would disagree that what Nazi Germany [and its willing supporters from other countries] did to 11 million or so people in its death camps will go down as among the most heinous crimes perpetrated by human beings in history.

              However, is giving disabled children oatmeal laced with radioactive isotopes, or pregnant women a "vitamin cocktail" containing radioactive iron, or deliberately sterilising the poor or those of colour, or not giving penicillin to black men with syphilis in a "research" programme somehow less atrocious?

              Sparko seems to be suggesting that a sliding scale can be applied to atrocities. That, in my opinion, is a very dangerous attitude and risks excusing, alleviating [or even ignoring] atrocities.
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                I am not sure what you mean by that remark. I know that in the late 19th century the British trained their navy. However, I understand that the Japanese warrior class had [to us] a somewhat brutal attitude towards defeat and/or surrender as well as the opprobrium of loss of honour [although I am prepared to be corrected on that].

                I do not think anyone would disagree that what Nazi Germany [and its willing supporters from other countries] did to 11 million or so people in its death camps will go down as among the most heinous crimes perpetrated by human beings in history.

                However, is giving disabled children oatmeal laced with radioactive isotopes, or pregnant women a "vitamin cocktail" containing radioactive iron, or deliberately sterilising the poor or those of colour, or not giving penicillin to black men with syphilis in a "research" programme somehow less atrocious?

                Sparko seems to be suggesting that a sliding scale can be applied to atrocities. That, in my opinion, is a very dangerous attitude and risks excusing, alleviating [or even ignoring] atrocities.
                Are those Less Atrocious than attempted depopulation and murder of a people on an entire continent using industrial scale facilities over a few short years?

                I'd say that is worse than unethical medical experiments. It's worse than flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people.

                That's not a sliding scale, that's just scale.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                  Are those Less Atrocious than attempted depopulation and murder of a people on an entire continent using industrial scale facilities over a few short years?

                  I'd say that is worse than unethical medical experiments. It's worse than flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people.

                  That's not a sliding scale, that's just scale.
                  As you have acknowledged you are referring to numbers "that's just scale".

                  I am referring to the ethics of such actions. Hence, in my opinion, the atrocity of feeding radioisotopes in oatmeal to disabled children or offering poor pregnant women a "vitamin cocktail" that contained radioactive iron, are no less atrocious acts than was the killing eleven million people, or deliberately flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people

                  They are all atrocities committed knowingly.
                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                    As you have acknowledged you are referring to numbers "that's just scale".

                    I am referring to the ethics of such actions. Hence, in my opinion, the atrocity of feeding radioisotopes in oatmeal to disabled children or offering poor pregnant women a "vitamin cocktail" that contained radioactive iron, are no less atrocious acts than was the killing eleven million people, or deliberately flying planes into buildings and killing 3000 people

                    They are all atrocities committed knowingly.
                    It sounds to me like you are just trying to create an equivalence in order to downplay the unique level of the horrors your country committed.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                      I am not sure what you mean by that remark. I know that in the late 19th century the British trained their navy. However, I understand that the Japanese warrior class had [to us] a somewhat brutal attitude towards defeat and/or surrender as well as the opprobrium of loss of honour [although I am prepared to be corrected on that].
                      News to me - I thought the Americans had the monopoly on that - something to look into. Though I do recall that the British entered into a fray of "blow the towns apart, from the sea" after two Englishmen were executed by a Daimyou for flagrant discourtesy. They kept that up until Japan made reparations.

                      I do not think anyone would disagree that what Nazi Germany [and its willing supporters from other countries] did to 11 million or so people in its death camps will go down as among the most heinous crimes perpetrated by human beings in history.
                      Memory is convenient - All of Europe had much the same attitude toward the Jews that Germany did until after the Germans had been conducting their pogrom for a while. IMO, If Germany had not invaded the wrong country, Europe (including England) would probably have turned a blind eye to the pogrom. But having decided to go to war, the German mistreatment of the Jews made them a convenient propaganda tool. As witness - which European countries gave safe haven to Jewish refugees? One? Two? And they fell to Germany anyway. Nor from memory did America offer asylum. The only country I know of (with certainty) as providing haven was Japan - and that is quite a story in itself. {{there was a movie, where a nazi arguing with an allied soldier said, "All of Europe had the same attitude toward the Jews - we had the guts to do something about it." ... the essentials of that claim are true enough.}}

                      However, is giving disabled children oatmeal laced with radioactive isotopes, or pregnant women a "vitamin cocktail" containing radioactive iron, or deliberately sterilising the poor or those of colour, or not giving penicillin to black men with syphilis in a "research" programme somehow less atrocious?
                      England played much the same game on Australian soldiers in the Maralinga atomic tests. It was (and seemingly remains) the European (based cultures') way.



                      In 1865 Commodore Perry sailed into Yokohama with four ships under his command - 2 "Black Ships" (iron clads: side wheeler /sailing ship combination) each with a sailing ship in tow. The Japanese were given the option of opening a trading partnership with America or having their coastal city (ies) obliterated. At the time Japan had one eight pounder to field against the banks of 10 pounders in each of the American ships. Japan was a defeated nation. Your
                      "I understand that the Japanese warrior class had [to us] a somewhat brutal attitude towards defeat and/or surrender as well as the opprobrium of loss of honour" cuts both ways here.






                      did indeed cut both ways - they regarded themselves pretty much as dishonoured vermin when they were not the victors. The result of the surrender was a civil war - one side wanting to oust the "Southern Barbarians" or die fighting !immediately!; their opponents wanting to oust the "Southern Barbarians," after first biding their time and learning the art of European (based cultures') war, arming and training appropriately. In the end, the second group won out and Japan proceeded to learn the art of European war - taking particular note of actions in the Americas, Antipodes, India, Africa (etc) and how defeated peoples were to be properly treated as demonstrated by European actions in those locations.

                      The Japanese had (and has) a second race living in the archipelago. The defeated people (Ainu) had been permitted to own land live in areas that the Japanese didn't want, continue their own customs, language, religion, and methods of teaching. American advisors persuaded the Japanese that this was no way to treated a defeated enemy, and in 1895 the "integration" act was brought into play. The way it played out reflected American patterns with the native Americans. The Ainu were deprived of their lands, prevented from following their traditions, etc and so forth. It isn't hard to work out where Japan learnt the proper way to treat defeated peoples. (NATCH: The reality IS NOT so clear cut - there is a measure of truth in our official histories, just as there is a measure of untruth in the account I have presented.) One thing is clear though - had the allies lost WWII, it would have been the allied heads of government on trial at the equivalent of a Nuremberg - the American president of the time is on record as saying as much.

                      Sparko
                      seems to be suggesting that a sliding scale can be applied to atrocities. That, in my opinion, is a very dangerous attitude and risks excusing, alleviating [or even ignoring] atrocities.
                      Humans do such things. It should not be forgotten that the white slavers (most often) bought their slaves from the slaves' own countrymen - and at times even from their own tribesmen. While the descendants of the European slavers have abjured slavery, the descendants of the African slavers continue their business with their more traditional buyers, and with some that are new.

                      ETA - The more I studied history, the less I wanted to know. Too many outrages, and no-one seems to really be the "good guy"
                      Last edited by tabibito; 08-24-2021, 05:13 AM.
                      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                      Scripture before Tradition:
                      but that won't prevent others from
                      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                      of the right to call yourself Christian.

                      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                        It sounds to me like you are just trying to create an equivalence in order to downplay the unique level of the horrors your country committed.
                        I acknowledge that all those examples we have both cited are atrocities. However, defining something an atrocity purely on the scale of the number of victims involved, is [as I previously noted] in my opinion rather dangerous.

                        For example, would you contend that the rape and murder of fourteen year old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the murder of her father, mother and six year old sister by US troops in 2006 was not an atrocity?
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                          I acknowledge that all those examples we have both cited are atrocities. However, defining something an atrocity purely on the scale of the number of victims involved, is [as I previously noted] in my opinion rather dangerous.

                          For example, would you contend that the rape and murder of fourteen year old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi and the murder of her father, mother and six year old sister by US troops in 2006 was not an atrocity?
                          It is, but pales in comparison to the industrial scale genocide orchestrated your people.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

                            It is,
                            Exactly. It remains an atrocious act deliberately and knowingly perpetrated.

                            Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post
                            but pales in comparison to the industrial scale genocide orchestrated your people.
                            Not in and of itself. As you have acknowledged it was an atrocity.

                            Is deliberate brutality and murder perpetrated on four people deemed to be in some way "less" than deliberate brutality and murder perpetrated on eleven million?

                            However, we are in danger of derailing this thread so you might consider starting another on this topic if you wish to continue this exchange.
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Is deliberate brutality and murder perpetrated on four people deemed to be in some way "less" than deliberate brutality and murder perpetrated on eleven million?
                              Yes. By a factor of 2.75 million

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                And, here we are...

                                U.S. Capitol Police Clear Officer Who Shot Ashli Babbitt During Jan. 6 Riot

                                Internal probe concludes officer acted lawfully, adhered to department policy in fatal shooting


                                23 August, 2021

                                WASHINGTON—The police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol won’t face discipline after a monthslong internal investigation cleared him of any wrongdoing.

                                The U.S. Capitol Police said the officer, whom officials haven’t publicly identified out of concerns for his safety, acted lawfully and adhered to department policy, which says police can use deadly force to defend their own lives and others’.

                                “The actions of the officer in this case potentially saved Members and staff from serious injury and possible death from a large crowd of rioters who forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and to the House Chamber where Members and staff were steps away,” Capitol Police said in announcing the results of the probe.

                                The officer, a lieutenant, shot Ms. Babbitt after rioters smashed through a door to the Speaker’s Lobby on Jan. 6. Ms. Babbitt had entered the building as part of a pro-Trump crowd aiming to disrupt the certification of President Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election.


                                It appears it's "department policy" to shoot unarmed women from behind cover. Somebody needs fired!
                                "...a monthslong internal investigation cleared him of any wrongdoing..."

                                The old "We have thoroughly investigated ourselves and found ourselves to be perfectly innocent" routine.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 04:03 AM
                                23 responses
                                105 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Diogenes  
                                Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 12:51 PM
                                94 responses
                                477 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post carpedm9587  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:47 AM
                                5 responses
                                44 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mossrose  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 06:36 AM
                                5 responses
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, 05-11-2024, 07:25 AM
                                57 responses
                                256 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X