Osama is Dead

Remove all ads!

With due respect, you're missing my point. My fault, really. I seem to be very bad at getting my point across using only text. Allow me to attempt to clarify.

A similar response would have been given regardless of the transgression. There are plenty of people who think that the military response given did not go far enough, these same people believe nothing short of war crimes are an appropriate response to what is a damned bloody nose.

Now, I don't mean to sound insensitive to the people who were caught up in that disaster. My heart goes out to them and their families, it really does. But in the ensuing war, more innocents have been victimized by both sides. So it is very difficult for me to feel any of the nationalistic fervor that grips most of the country's masses. My heart is with all the people who have been engulfed by a conflict that they had nothing to do with and wanted nothing to do with

 

Fair enough. However, I do not consider myself a warmonger in any sense of the word, and I had no problem with the invasion of Afghanistan. The loss of civilian life is unfortunate, but unlike with the attacks masterminded by OBL, it was not the purpose of the attacks.

 

I do not get how so many people can make such a sharp distinction between intentional killings and "uninentional" killings. Dead is dead right? If I send a bomb into a school intending to kill pupils and kill 10 it is apparently worse than if I send a bomb into a school intending to kill a terrorist suspected to hide there and killing 100 pupils. The second is somehow a mistake? No matter how you twist US bombs have killed way more innocents than the 9/11 attacks but it doesn't count cause they didn't intend to kill innocents?

Well, the 9/11 attacks werent really intended to kill innocents either. They were meant to scare people, make a statement and probably goad the US into attacking and bombing stuff. They flew into the towers reasonably early, before most people had gotten to work it could be argued that they did what they could to spare innocent lives while still achieving their military goals.

 

OK, first of all, that's a red herring - the US has never dropped a bomb on a school because they thought that a terrorist was inside. Heck, one of the biggest problems in areas where there were insurgents was that they blended in with the population, so you couldn't just level a city block because you knew there were terrorists in some of the buildings.

So yes, I do see a distinction between collateral damage and deliberate killing of civilians. To me it's as clear a difference as an imprecised bomb dropped during WWII hitting a civilian home and the Nazi systematic killing of Jews.

Oh come on... they were intended to do all of those things. Thousands of people worked in those towers, not to mention the hundreds on the planes.

The first plane hit the WTC just before 9 AM. Most professional start work at 8:00 in the US. (The 9-5 workday is a myth - I don't know any professional who actually works those hours. It's actually 8-5 with a hour for lunch in most places.) I'd say the vast majority of people who worked at the WTC were there at the time the planes hit. I don't think the timing of it spared any lives at all.

 

They killed hundreds and hundreds of innocents. Sparing lives? That's absurd.... and insulting to anyone living in America.

Most people working in those buildings worked more than your average 9-5 shift. I was working for a major Apparel group at the time that had over a hundred employees in those buidlings. Most of those employees worked 12 hr days, if not more, as they were management tiered, salary employees trying to meet deadlines. The towers were full of business professionals from a ton of companies and most of them work more than a 8 hr work day. It's standard at that level. The terrorists had no thought of sparing lives, but just the opposite. That is why they hit the towers.... to cause mass destruction and deaths.

 

Not one of your better posts, jaocqin.

 

Of course it is a red herring! It is the entire point. The basic principle behind my "school bombing" happens every day though.

People are so blind by jingoism that everything done to them is an atrocity while everything they do to others was a nescessary evil or collateral damage or what have you. People on the "other" side see it as I wrote it, you of course disagree. I have heard it argued that the 9/11 attack minimized civilian casualties, I do not say it is true but there are people who view it like this. Just as you are convinced that the US military does everything in its power to minimize civilian loss of life while still fulfilling the military objectives.

For your enemies 9/11 was a military strike intending to hurt your infrastructure, to weaken you. Does the US not do the same? Have the US never taken out a bridge, or a road used by the enemy? Maybe a bridge used by innocent civilians who even if they were not on the bridge relied on it for their livelyhood.

How do you convince yourself that your enemies killing civilians is a horrible atrocity but you doing it is collateral damage? As has been pointed out, way more civilians have been killed by the US military than have been killed by Al-qaeda. Now I may be more sympathetic to the US than I am to muslim extremists but the US is still killing way more innocent people but apparently it is all a big accident.

I must honestly say that it disgusts me how upset the world is over 3000 people killed in the 9/11 attack while not giving one whit about the thousands killed in Iraq, Afganistan, Chechnya or anywhere else in the world. It is so horrendously obvious that an American life is worth immensly more than the life of some Afgan farmer. This of course isnt a purely American phenomena, I vividly remember the grief shown for the Swedes who died in the tsunami in stark contrast to the token mention of hte few hundred thousand "others", natives who had died all over Asia in the same disaster.

Yes, 3000 innocent people died in the 9/11 attacks and that is an atrocity but the US has retaliated by killing tens of thousands of civilians on the other side and no one minds. I simply want a human life to be worth a human life whether it is American, Swedish, Afgan, Iraqi, Somalian, Serbian, Spanish, British, Russian, Japanese, Chinese or whatever.

 

Joacquin, that's a pretty brave post to make, I would imagine that you expected slings and arrows for it.

However, I have to say I agree with you.

 

So you were merely making a rhetorical statement? You don't actually believe that?

Wow, you're really going to be pissed now - I place the death of all the dead Afganis at the feet of al Qaueda as well. Simply because there would have been zero Afghanis killed by Americans if it were not for the initial 9/11 attacks to begin with. If you play with fire, sooner or later you're going to get burned.

To most people, actions are not evaluated without the context of intent.

 

I have said before that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. It's all a matter of perspective -- most military people I know understand. My only disagreement in joacqin's comments is with this:

I think the statement is deceptive. First of all, you need to define "civilian". The broadest definition is someone who is not in the military -- which is an extremely unfair definition as that would mean all of the enemy are civilians (and by that definition you would be correct). However, if all combatants are not civilians then the number of "civilian" deaths for Al Qaeda (and the Taliban for that matter) probably exceeds the number for the US and allies. Once you factor in combatants (which includes the people doing the fighting and their logistic support network) the actual numbers become very gray because the role of the person killed is quite often difficult to positively ascertain.

If you go to the opposite side and just look at "innocents", people we know are not involved in the conflict at all (and "know" is again a nebulous term), then I would say Al Qaeda and the Taliban have put up far more numbers than the US and its allies.

In war and any other great tragedy, people grieve the loss of those they know (directly or indirectly) and tune out the losses of others. I believe it's an evolutionary coping mechanism. If every loss was as tragic as losing a family member or friend we would cease to exist as a people.

 

I disagree, alot of those killed in the US led invasions of Iraq and afghanistan have been innocent of any involvement in the war.... ~cough~chinese embassy~cough~

but on the flip side, this distinction you have made would make all of those killed on eitherside combatants this quote:

, would make all Americans combatants, as they pay taxes which support the millitary (If I wiped out 200million american tax payers, the millitary would have to downsize), also many of those killed in the 9/11 attacks were involved in the financial wellbeing of the US and their allies.

 

American taxpayers pay dollars to the government. The US government then determines where that money goes. Not the taxpayers. The taxpayers don't make decisions about what the Armed Forces do our what resources get allocated to them. The taxpayers are NOT part of any military initiative and if targeted, are innocent civilians, period. That comparison is ridiculous.

The same goes for the Afghanies. There civilians are innocent. The difference is US Armed Forces don't hide behind our civilians when waging a war to stop terrorism. So, of course there will end up being more civilian casualties on the other side, as we are fighting on their turf and only our military is in the line of fire... I would think that is a no-brainer...

 

Even casualties due to war crimes by coalition troops?

In any case the majority of civilian and Afghan deaths is Afghanistan are caused by Afghanis themselves and mostly by Taliban. According to a UN report 2009 the Taliban are directly responsible for 79% of the total civilian casualties. Afghanistan was in middle of a long civil war even before the coalition arrived and I doubt the situation would be much better without the western intervention.

I don't really see much of a reason to be in Afghanistan anymore really. It's probably not worth the effort since it should be pretty frigging obvious by now that we are not going to win, the Taliban aren't going to magically disappear and Afghanistan won't be turning into a "haven for democracy" anytime soon.

 

I think the nature of civillian deaths are somewhat different. And while I agree once an organization like Blackwater, or other mercenary groups are taken into consideration, but certainly Al-Qaeda and its allies have killed their share of civillians in the ME -- with the intention to do just that.

 

It doesnt matter if you make decisions, as a tax payer you support your country, the millitary is a by product of that support - I dont believe that an 'innocent' civillian is possible, your on the other side, you are the enemy, as any war has ever told us, to bring down the goverment, you have to hurt its people.

add to that as a great number of americans would gladly pick up a gun just for the opportunity to shoot something, you could guarentee that if you were to invade the US in a real sense, the population would be a threat.

 

You know this how??? You lived here?

That comment is extremely absurd. Most here want nothig to do with guns. Most here want nothing to do with government, just like most normal people of any nation.

You forget that we are not fighting a "Government" in Afghanistan, but a radical organization....

 

youre telling me that you wouldnt fight to protect your family and friends if your country was invaded?

facts dont matter, this is a common opinion of the US from the rest of the world, If I were briefing an officer with regards to threat analysis of an invasion of the US, the population would be on the list.

we did the same in WW2, targeting the german population because it was believed that they would fight to the last, in truth, many would have gladly surrendered, but you dont take that risk - Hiroshima Nagasaki, were blatantly destroyed because it was believed that a mainland invasion of Japan would be too costly once again it was believed that the civillians would fight to the end, when infact many would have simply killed themselves to prevent their capture at the hands of the american devils.

 

My point was that most won't "gladly" pick up a gun to shoot something. That is a terrible generalization. but obviously, yes, if oyu invaded the US, most civilians would fight. But so would civilians of any nation, so the point is moot.... Or better yet, what is your point?

 

since you couldnt get the sarcasm from "gladly shoot something" I will point out; I was being sarcastic to paint the US people with the stereotype that you are all gun toting cowboy yahoos.

and that is why the population are potential combatants and would be targeted as a whole.

I made my point several posts ago when I was arguing that you target the people to take down a government, whether people think "Im supporting my government " or not when they pull out a gun and start shooting at my soldiers is irrelevent, by fighting my forces they are actively aiding the defence of the country.