no comeback? you, like most others, seem to completely ignore most points, such as the fact that it was not the country of Afghanistan that did 9/11 and that the U.S. does, in fact, DELIBERATELY attack many civilian areas in Afghanistan. you completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan as "collateral damage." well, what about the people killed in 9/11? 9/11 was an act of war, and in war, people die as "collateral damage." and don't dismiss this argument as being different because it is not different than the same tactics the U.S. use on Afghani civilians.
So you acknowledge? So what should our response have been? A complete and unconditional surrender to whatever harebrained demands Bin Laden felt like making?
It is different. American troops attack military targets. Yes, some of them are in civilian areas and civilians are going to get hurt. But that is a risk you take with terrorism and guerilla forces. The WTC had no remote military connection, it was an act of violence intended to kill as many civilians as possible. There is a huge difference there. I assume you have examples proving that it is official U.S. military policy to attempt to kill as many civilians as possible along with the terrorists?
I've opposed the war in Iraq from day one. I thought it was a horrible idea from the moment Dubya started mentioning it. But Afghanistan was a legitimate target and I don't believe our troops are out there with orders to kill innocent people. I know it happens and I wish it didn't, but there is no way they are on the same level. Had we not been distracted by Iraq, we could have all of our troops out of Afghanistan by now and no innocents would be dying anywhere. We fucked up big time. But that doesn't mean America should never use military force for any reason ever or that any time America does so it is wrong.
So you acknowledge? So what should our response have been?
After 9/11, we had the world on our side. Most, if not all, countries felt great sympathy towards the U.S., including countries like Iran and the Arab world. We should have used that to our advantage. We could have engaged in serious diplomatic talks at that time with our "enemies" (like Iran). Most Arab sheikhs condemned the attacks, most muslims in America were devastated, it was a time to effectively gain popularity and sympathy among Arabs and Muslims and instead we turned it all to shit by bombing the hell out of Afghanistan. whether you want to admit it or not, the Arab world did NOT support Bin Laden.
It is different. American troops attack military targets. Yes, some of them are in civilian areas and civilians are going to get hurt. But that is a risk you take with terrorism and guerilla forces.
all are just small examples of deliberate attacks against civilians. there are many more reports on it even from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. they also condemn the Taliban too, but our discussion is about U.S. attacks on civilians, not the Taliban.
The WTC had no remote military connection, it was an act of violence intended to kill as many civilians as possible. There is a huge difference there. I assume you have examples proving that it is official U.S. military policy to attempt to kill as many civilians as possible along with the terrorists?
yep.
But Afghanistan was a legitimate target and I don't believe our troops are out there with orders to kill innocent people. I know it happens and I wish it didn't, but there is no way they are on the same level.
why not? both are acts of war. both are attacks on civilian targets... yeah, I'd say they are definitely similar.
Had we not been distracted by Iraq, we could have all of our troops out of Afghanistan by now
yep, we'd also have most Afghanis out of this world as well.
and no innocents would be dying anywhere.
how does that make sense?
that doesn't mean America should never use military force for any reason ever or that any time America does so it is wrong.
where does "never use military force for any reason ever" even come into play here? no one here ever even insinuated that was the case.
we are strictly talking about Afghanistan right now. bringing up "no military force ever" and even your points about Iraq is irrelevant.
awesome. so, you disagree with the fact that U.S. deliberately attacks many civilian areas in Afghanistan? You think hundreds of thousands of civilians die by accident? you disagree that the people in 9/11 who died are comparable to the innocents who died in Afghanistan? Iraq? Palestine? why is that?
and feel free to ignore these points again by just saying "I disagree."
I disagree.
EDIT: By the way, the eighth word in one of those links you provided was "accidentally" -- which tends to completely obliterate your point about attacks on civilians being "on purpose."
EDIT2: Another of those links says Afghan militants use civilians as human shields, thus ensuring a higher rate of civilian casualties. Again, not a great link for buttressing your argument.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
After 9/11, we had the world on our side. Most, if not all, countries felt great sympathy towards the U.S., including countries like Iran and the Arab world. We should have used that to our advantage. We could have engaged in serious diplomatic talks at that time with our "enemies" (like Iran). Most Arab sheikhs condemned the attacks, most muslims in America were devastated, it was a time to effectively gain popularity and sympathy among Arabs and Muslims and instead we turned it all to shit by bombing the hell out of Afghanistan. whether you want to admit it or not, the Arab world did NOT support Bin Laden.
You are aware, of course, that the world also supported our military action in Afghanistan? It was not until Iraq and the WMD nonsense that the tide turned against us. The international community knew the Taliban was active in supporting terrorism worldwide, not just in the U.S. The Arab world di not support the Taliban any more than Bin Laden and we hurt no good will until we got sloppy there because we only started caring about our wild goose chase through Iraq.
"many military garrisons and facilities are located in urban areas where the Soviet-backed government had placed them"
What are we supposed to do? Maybe the writer feels we are not careful enough and that is legitimate, but this has no bearing on the legitimacy of the war and certainly does not indicate that we are trying to kill innocent civilians, just that our level of caution may be grossly negligent.
"But rights groups and analysts say the United States and other NATO forces must try harder to avoid civilian casualties if they want to keep the Afghan population on their side."
Absolutely. But as above, what does this have to do with the legitimacy of the invasion in the first place? It says we need to be more careful, not that we shouldn't be there or that we are INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians.
"But the episode underlines differences of opinion among NATO and American military forces in Afghanistan on tactics for fighting Taliban insurgents,"
Differences of opinion on tactics. The guy later says everyone is concerned about civilians, Americans are just doing a shit job of protecting them. I don't dispute that. But again, this does not say anywhere that Americans are deliberately trying to kill civilians.
all are just small examples of DELIBERATE attacks against civilians. there are many more reports on it even from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. they also condemn the Taliban too, but our discussion is about U.S. attacks on civilians, not the Taliban.
why not? both are acts of war. both are attacks on civilian targets... yeah, I'd say they are definitely similar..
Funny, the word I keep seeing is "accidental" or "careless" not "deliberate." that is why they are definitely not similar. You seem to have no conception of the importance of motive. I'll give you an example:
Guy 1 is messing with a cell phone in a car, swerves to avoid another car, and hits and kills someone on a sidewalk. Guy 2 doesn't like his neighbors, buys a knife, sharpens it for a week, then goes next door to stab them.
Is this the same crime? Because that is the argument you are making here, that one's intent does not matter when judging culpability. You can argue that US forces are not being as careful as they should and I might agree with you. But to say that the US forces have the same INTENT as the 9/11 perpetrators is absurd. There is a vast difference in terms of culpability. We do and should hold ourselves to a much higher standard, but that doesn't mean that anytime we fall short we are no different from those who intentionally try to kill innocent people.
we are strictly talking about Afghanistan right now. bringing up "no military force ever" and even your points about Iraq is irrelevant.
I bring it up because I wonder what criteria you use when justifying military force. You yourself acknowledge that 9/11 was an act of war, an attack on our country. Yet you say a military response to an act of war was unjustified. When would it be justified?
yep, that certainly adds credibility to your argument.
EDIT: By the way, the eighth word in one of those links you provided was "accidentally" -- which tends to completely obliterate your point about attacks on civilians being "on purpose."
it obliterates my entire point? why? because the other links don't make sense?
and other than the fact that "accidentally" striking a wedding is absolute bullshit, they aren't considered collateral damage. there was no military base aroudn them or anything, so what the fuck happened.
EDIT2: Another of those links says Afghan militants use civilians as human shields, thus ensuring a higher rate of civilian casualties. Again, not a great link for buttressing your argument.
uh, I already mentioned the fact that the Taliban are responsible for many deaths, but you are just ignoring the fact that many articles and complaints show that the U.S. is in fact targeting civilians. feel free to ignore it as much as you want. as long as it's muslims dying and not Americans, people seem to think it's justified.
it obliterates my entire point? why? because the other links don't make sense?
and other than the fact that "accidentally" striking a wedding is absolute bullshit, they aren't considered collateral damage. there was no military base aroudn them or anything, so what the fuck happened.
You: "The U.S. is intentionally killing civilians in Afghanistan. Here's a link to prove it."
Me: "Um ... your link says those deaths were accidental, which according to my trusty thesaurus means the exact opposite of intentional."
You: "Well, the link, which I provided in the first place, is full of shit, then."
You see how it's just easier for me to say, "I disagree" instead of banging my head against that particular wall over and over and over again?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
yep, that certainly adds credibility to your argument.
it obliterates my entire point? why? because the other links don't make sense?
and other than the fact that "accidentally" striking a wedding is absolute bullshit, they aren't considered collateral damage. there was no military base aroudn them or anything, so what the fuck happened.
uh, I already mentioned the fact that the Taliban are responsible for many deaths, but you are just ignoring the fact that many articles and complaints show that the U.S. is in fact targeting civilians. feel free to ignore it as much as you want. as long as it's muslims dying and not Americans, people seem to think it's justified.
I've yet to see such articles. Your articles say that many of their targets happen to be in areas that are civilian-rich and that the US is not being as careful as it should be in attacking those targets. That's fine. But it does not support your position that the US is trying to kill as many Afghan civilians as possible.
You are aware, of course, that the world also supported our military action in Afghanistan? It was not until Iraq and the WMD nonsense that the tide turned against us. The international community knew the Taliban was active in supporting terrorism worldwide, not just in the U.S. The Arab world di not support the Taliban any more than Bin Laden and we hurt no good will until we got sloppy there because we only started caring about our wild goose chase through Iraq.
Not really. Many countries were not happy about the way we directed our efforts in Afghanistan.
"many military garrisons and facilities are located in urban areas where the Soviet-backed government had placed them"
What are we supposed to do? Maybe the writer feels we are not careful enough and that is legitimate, but this has no bearing on the legitimacy of the war and certainly does not indicate that we are trying to kill innocent civilians, just that our level of caution may be grossly negligent.
uh, is that the only thing you did when you read that loooooooooong webpage (assuming you read it)? you just got one quote that fits your agenda? ok, good luck trying to prove your point with that.
battling militants? they bombed a fucking wedding.
"But rights groups and analysts say the United States and other NATO forces must try harder to avoid civilian casualties if they want to keep the Afghan population on their side."
Absolutely. But as above, what does this have to do with the legitimacy of the invasion in the first place? It says we need to be more careful, not that we shouldn't be there or that we are INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians.
it doesn't have anything to do with the legitimacy of the invasion, we were talking about deliberately targeting civilians. oh, and if you actually read some of the websites I posted and amnesty international articles, you'll see that there have been MANY instances were farms, weddings, and civilian villages were bombed.
"But the episode underlines differences of opinion among NATO and American military forces in Afghanistan on tactics for fighting Taliban insurgents,"
Differences of opinion on tactics. The guy later says everyone is concerned about civilians, Americans are just doing a shit job of protecting them. I don't dispute that. But again, this does not say anywhere that Americans are deliberately trying to kill civilians.
what the fuck are you talking about? what's the difference between not caring about killing civilians and deliberately killing civilians? seriously, is this even an argument? how ridiculous can you get.
This is not a news source. It's a leftist message board.
uh, it had a link to an (old) news source, where it quoted it. Link's dead now, but it's legit. feel free to look it up.
Funny, the word I keep seeing is "accidental" or "careless" not "deliberate." that is why they are definitely not similar.
careless =/= deliberate? so if I CARELESSLY drop a bomb over your house, it wasn't deliberate?
Jesus.
You seem to have no conception of the importance of motive. I'll give you an example:
Guy 1 is messing with a cell phone in a car, swerves to avoid another car, and hits and kills someone on a sidewalk. Guy 2 doesn't like his neighbors, buys a knife, sharpens it for a week, then goes next door to stab them.
uhh... yeah, it's more like nothing like that at all.
Is this the same crime? Because that is the argument you are making here, that one's intent does not matter when judging culpability. You can argue that US forces are not being as careful as they should and I might agree with you.
to CARELESSLY drop bombs on areas where there are civilians living there is a war crime, pure and simple. and when you kill civilians KNOWINGLY, people would say it's pretty fucking deliberate, but who am I to judge right??
But to say that the US forces have the same INTENT as the 9/11 perpetrators is absurd. There is a vast difference in terms of culpability. We do and should hold ourselves to a much higher standard, but that doesn't mean that anytime we fall short we are no different from those who intentionally try to kill innocent people.
you know what's absurd? you guys dismissing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people as simply "collateral damage." you know what I don't understand? when a US marine is killed in war, the country goes fucking nuts. but when 1000 civilians are killed (of course, not from our country) people think "that's what happens in a war."
give me a fucking break.
I bring it up because I wonder what criteria you use when justifying military force. You yourself acknowledge that 9/11 was an act of war, an attack on our country. Yet you say a military response to an act of war was unjustified. When would it be justified?
an act of war from a terrorist organization, not another country. big difference.
careless =/= deliberate? so if I CARELESSLY drop a bomb over your house, it wasn't deliberate?
If you carelessly tried to drop a bomb on my neighbor's house, then no, you were not deliberately trying to kill me. If someone broke into your house and you shot at them and had poor aim and hit your buddy sleeping on the couch, I don't think you're a murderer.
you know what's absurd? you guys dismissing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people as simply "collateral damage." you know what I don't understand? when a US marine is killed in war, the country goes fucking nuts. but when 1000 civilians are killed (of course, not from our country) people think "that's what happens in a war."
I'm not dismissing their deaths. I think it's sad that it came to this and I believe we should definitely have more oversight and review of the actions of our troops to ensure that they are doing everything they can to avoid innocent lives being taken. Those who are indifferent to civilian casualties should be disciplined or prosecuted. But that does not change the fact that it was a necessary fight and that our soldiers are not being sent there to find and kill as many innocent Afghanis as they can. They may be doing a poor job of making sure that doesn't happen, but they are still a long way from the 9/11 perpetrators who never even tried to avoid civilian deaths and whose express goal was to cause as many as possible.
an act of war from a terrorist organization, not another country. big difference.
I don't see the difference. Perhaps you can explain it to me. If, say, Saddam Hussein had blown up the WTC with missiles, would an invasion of Iraq be justified? I fail to see what difference it makes. If you commit an act of war, expect war in return. The Taliban regime was sponsoring terrorism, so we took them out. Not every German was executing Jews or lobbing bombs at Britain, but that doesn't mean we should have never dropped bombs on them because some might have killed civilians.
outlaw, I have seen you in this thread at least FOUR different times referencing "hundreds of thousands" killed in Afghanistan by US forces. the fact is that TOTAL, there have not been "hundreds of thousands" of deaths in Afghanistan. in fact, there has been LESS than 100,000 total, and most of those were Taliban and terrorist organizations (like Al Qaida). the number I have seen of innocent civilian dead has been estimated at less than 3,000. so, if you can't get your number right within several hundred thousand, how can you expect to be taken seriously?
outlaw, I have seen you in this thread at least FOUR different times referencing "hundreds of thousands" killed in Afghanistan by US forces. the fact is that TOTAL, there have not been "hundreds of thousands" of deaths in Afghanistan. in fact, there has been LESS than 100,000 total, and most of those were Taliban and terrorist organizations (like Al Qaida). the number I have seen of innocent civilian dead has been estimated at less than 3,000. so, if you can't get your number right within several hundred thousand, how can you expect to be taken seriously?
I'm not just talking about Afghanistan. Throughout this entire thread, I've mentioned Iraq and Palestine as well. if you can't read my posts properly, how can you expect to be taken seriously?
honestly, debating this with people so close-minded is pointless to me.
You have no interest in a discussion...your's is nothing more than a string of posts forming 1 long ass monologue.
i'm sure you know more than I do what I have an interest in. just because I'm actually making points and not saying bullshit like "both sides are wrong, but I won't say why or how we can fix it" doesn't mean I don't have an interest in discussion. :rolleyes:
War in Afghanistan...Afghanistan was a nice place, a good people. years of Soviet rule destroyed that. Then having america backing them against the soviets...only to run away after The Soviet withdrawal. Leaving afganistan to rot even more. That's what created the taliban.
Oh God. I'm in tears from that:D:D:D
You know what you're right. Afghan was a nice place, flowers and pink bunnies nice but then (eek!) the red commies from Soviet union came and destroyed all the fun and prosperity of once-great country. Sounds like you've been brainwashed by the Fox-fucking-News (thankie Trent).
Wake the fuck up! Oh, and Zack is right by the way.
I'm not just talking about Afghanistan. Throughout this entire thread, I've mentioned Iraq and Palestine as well. if you can't read my posts properly, how can you expect to be taken seriously?
honestly, debating this with people so close-minded is pointless to me.
here ya go. the first and fourth quotes, you SPECIFICALLY state that US forces have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan. in the second and third quotes, the poster makes a comment that is specically about Afghanistan, and you respond that the US has killed hundreds of thousands. you can't really deny what you were saying when it's right there in black and white.........
America has 4,000 people killed in a tragedy, but responds - with the full backing of most citizens in the U.S. - by killing hundreds of thousands of Afghanis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slightofjeff
Afghanistan was completely justified. Zach's heart is in the right place, but he's kind of a dumb shit.
_outlaw's response: apparently the killing of hundreds of thousands of people is justified? displacing many thousands of people from their homes is justified?
you completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan as "collateral damage."
now, as I previously stated, the estimated number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is LESS THAN 3,000....WAY far off from the "hundreds of thousands" that you claim. you've been served.
now, as I previously stated, the estimated number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is LESS THAN 3,000....WAY far off from the "hundreds of thousands" that you claim. you've been served.
1. I only specifically mention Afghanis in two of those quotes, and it's probably just me getting mixed up by my main points.
2. you are straying away from the actual issue just to try to score some points for yourself.
again, people find ways to ignore issues and justify deaths. as long as it's not on american soil though, no one gives a shit.
now, as I previously stated, the estimated number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is LESS THAN 3,000....WAY far off from the "hundreds of thousands" that you claim. you've been served.
please note the dates on these articles and contrast that with your above statement.
I'm not just talking about Afghanistan. Throughout this entire thread, I've mentioned Iraq and Palestine as well. if you can't read my posts properly, how can you expect to be taken seriously?
honestly, debating this with people so close-minded is pointless to me.
Nope, sorry!
You have been quoting that stat as a reason we should pull out of Afghanistan in many other threads. The fact is that number MAY be close to or LESS than what has happened in Iraq, but Afghanistan is nowhere near that figure.
I am very liberally minded, but the Taleban and the Pakistani ISI are clearly behind al-Qaida on many of their operations including 911.
God, you people fail to mention that the entire international community, including the UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc... was in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11.
Of course there is collateral damage. Of course we aren't doing our job. We have been focusing all our energy on the misguided war against Iraq, and no one has picked up the slack!!!!
You have been quoting that stat as a reason we should pull out of Afghanistan in many other threads. The fact is that number MAY be close to or LESS than what has happened in Iraq, but Afghanistan is nowhere near that figure.
Iraq has a death count of 1 million, Afghanistan- no one really knows, but it's definitely well into the thousands, if not tens of thousands.
I am very liberally minded, but the Taleban and the Pakistani ISI are clearly behind al-Qaida on many of their operations including 911.
Comments
So you acknowledge? So what should our response have been? A complete and unconditional surrender to whatever harebrained demands Bin Laden felt like making?
It is different. American troops attack military targets. Yes, some of them are in civilian areas and civilians are going to get hurt. But that is a risk you take with terrorism and guerilla forces. The WTC had no remote military connection, it was an act of violence intended to kill as many civilians as possible. There is a huge difference there. I assume you have examples proving that it is official U.S. military policy to attempt to kill as many civilians as possible along with the terrorists?
I've opposed the war in Iraq from day one. I thought it was a horrible idea from the moment Dubya started mentioning it. But Afghanistan was a legitimate target and I don't believe our troops are out there with orders to kill innocent people. I know it happens and I wish it didn't, but there is no way they are on the same level. Had we not been distracted by Iraq, we could have all of our troops out of Afghanistan by now and no innocents would be dying anywhere. We fucked up big time. But that doesn't mean America should never use military force for any reason ever or that any time America does so it is wrong.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080706/ap_on_re_as/afghan_violence
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1075104.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/world/asia/09casualties.html?ref=asia
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/30/30-afghan-civilians-killed-in-us-attack/
all are just small examples of deliberate attacks against civilians. there are many more reports on it even from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc. they also condemn the Taliban too, but our discussion is about U.S. attacks on civilians, not the Taliban. yep. why not? both are acts of war. both are attacks on civilian targets... yeah, I'd say they are definitely similar.
yep, we'd also have most Afghanis out of this world as well. how does that make sense? where does "never use military force for any reason ever" even come into play here? no one here ever even insinuated that was the case.
we are strictly talking about Afghanistan right now. bringing up "no military force ever" and even your points about Iraq is irrelevant.
I disagree.
EDIT: By the way, the eighth word in one of those links you provided was "accidentally" -- which tends to completely obliterate your point about attacks on civilians being "on purpose."
EDIT2: Another of those links says Afghan militants use civilians as human shields, thus ensuring a higher rate of civilian casualties. Again, not a great link for buttressing your argument.
for the least they could possibly do
"many military garrisons and facilities are located in urban areas where the Soviet-backed government had placed them"
What are we supposed to do? Maybe the writer feels we are not careful enough and that is legitimate, but this has no bearing on the legitimacy of the war and certainly does not indicate that we are trying to kill innocent civilians, just that our level of caution may be grossly negligent.
"fighter aircraft battling militants accidentally killed"
Accidentally.
"But rights groups and analysts say the United States and other NATO forces must try harder to avoid civilian casualties if they want to keep the Afghan population on their side."
Absolutely. But as above, what does this have to do with the legitimacy of the invasion in the first place? It says we need to be more careful, not that we shouldn't be there or that we are INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians.
"But the episode underlines differences of opinion among NATO and American military forces in Afghanistan on tactics for fighting Taliban insurgents,"
Differences of opinion on tactics. The guy later says everyone is concerned about civilians, Americans are just doing a shit job of protecting them. I don't dispute that. But again, this does not say anywhere that Americans are deliberately trying to kill civilians.
This is not a news source. It's a leftist message board.
Funny, the word I keep seeing is "accidental" or "careless" not "deliberate." that is why they are definitely not similar. You seem to have no conception of the importance of motive. I'll give you an example:
Guy 1 is messing with a cell phone in a car, swerves to avoid another car, and hits and kills someone on a sidewalk. Guy 2 doesn't like his neighbors, buys a knife, sharpens it for a week, then goes next door to stab them.
Is this the same crime? Because that is the argument you are making here, that one's intent does not matter when judging culpability. You can argue that US forces are not being as careful as they should and I might agree with you. But to say that the US forces have the same INTENT as the 9/11 perpetrators is absurd. There is a vast difference in terms of culpability. We do and should hold ourselves to a much higher standard, but that doesn't mean that anytime we fall short we are no different from those who intentionally try to kill innocent people.
I bring it up because I wonder what criteria you use when justifying military force. You yourself acknowledge that 9/11 was an act of war, an attack on our country. Yet you say a military response to an act of war was unjustified. When would it be justified?
Damn solid post for the new guy.
for the least they could possibly do
It's easy to do when you're given so many easy opportunities
This stuff is addictive though!
and other than the fact that "accidentally" striking a wedding is absolute bullshit, they aren't considered collateral damage. there was no military base aroudn them or anything, so what the fuck happened. uh, I already mentioned the fact that the Taliban are responsible for many deaths, but you are just ignoring the fact that many articles and complaints show that the U.S. is in fact targeting civilians. feel free to ignore it as much as you want. as long as it's muslims dying and not Americans, people seem to think it's justified.
You: "The U.S. is intentionally killing civilians in Afghanistan. Here's a link to prove it."
Me: "Um ... your link says those deaths were accidental, which according to my trusty thesaurus means the exact opposite of intentional."
You: "Well, the link, which I provided in the first place, is full of shit, then."
You see how it's just easier for me to say, "I disagree" instead of banging my head against that particular wall over and over and over again?
for the least they could possibly do
I've yet to see such articles. Your articles say that many of their targets happen to be in areas that are civilian-rich and that the US is not being as careful as it should be in attacking those targets. That's fine. But it does not support your position that the US is trying to kill as many Afghan civilians as possible.
Jesus.
uhh... yeah, it's more like nothing like that at all.
to CARELESSLY drop bombs on areas where there are civilians living there is a war crime, pure and simple. and when you kill civilians KNOWINGLY, people would say it's pretty fucking deliberate, but who am I to judge right?? you know what's absurd? you guys dismissing the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people as simply "collateral damage." you know what I don't understand? when a US marine is killed in war, the country goes fucking nuts. but when 1000 civilians are killed (of course, not from our country) people think "that's what happens in a war."
give me a fucking break. an act of war from a terrorist organization, not another country. big difference.
I take it the band was horrible ...
for the least they could possibly do
a terrorist organization that was openly harbored, supported, and protected by the Afghani government
You have no interest in a discussion...your's is nothing more than a string of posts forming 1 long ass monologue.
Sounds like the "I disagree" response that got you so wound up earlier.
I'm not dismissing their deaths. I think it's sad that it came to this and I believe we should definitely have more oversight and review of the actions of our troops to ensure that they are doing everything they can to avoid innocent lives being taken. Those who are indifferent to civilian casualties should be disciplined or prosecuted. But that does not change the fact that it was a necessary fight and that our soldiers are not being sent there to find and kill as many innocent Afghanis as they can. They may be doing a poor job of making sure that doesn't happen, but they are still a long way from the 9/11 perpetrators who never even tried to avoid civilian deaths and whose express goal was to cause as many as possible.
I don't see the difference. Perhaps you can explain it to me. If, say, Saddam Hussein had blown up the WTC with missiles, would an invasion of Iraq be justified? I fail to see what difference it makes. If you commit an act of war, expect war in return. The Taliban regime was sponsoring terrorism, so we took them out. Not every German was executing Jews or lobbing bombs at Britain, but that doesn't mean we should have never dropped bombs on them because some might have killed civilians.
honestly, debating this with people so close-minded is pointless to me.
Oh God. I'm in tears from that:D:D:D
You know what you're right. Afghan was a nice place, flowers and pink bunnies nice but then (eek!) the red commies from Soviet union came and destroyed all the fun and prosperity of once-great country. Sounds like you've been brainwashed by the Fox-fucking-News (thankie Trent).
Wake the fuck up! Oh, and Zack is right by the way.
here ya go. the first and fourth quotes, you SPECIFICALLY state that US forces have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan. in the second and third quotes, the poster makes a comment that is specically about Afghanistan, and you respond that the US has killed hundreds of thousands. you can't really deny what you were saying when it's right there in black and white.........
now, as I previously stated, the estimated number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan is LESS THAN 3,000....WAY far off from the "hundreds of thousands" that you claim. you've been served.
2. you are straying away from the actual issue just to try to score some points for yourself.
again, people find ways to ignore issues and justify deaths. as long as it's not on american soil though, no one gives a shit.
Anybody else's irony meter just explode into bits?
for the least they could possibly do
No, it's you not knowing what the hell you're talking about.
Jesus Christ, you sound like Dr. Evil: "One ... hundred ... billion ... TRILLION ... Afghans."
for the least they could possibly do
please note the dates on these articles and contrast that with your above statement.
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/dec/20/afghanistan.comment
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Nope, sorry!
You have been quoting that stat as a reason we should pull out of Afghanistan in many other threads. The fact is that number MAY be close to or LESS than what has happened in Iraq, but Afghanistan is nowhere near that figure.
I am very liberally minded, but the Taleban and the Pakistani ISI are clearly behind al-Qaida on many of their operations including 911.
God, you people fail to mention that the entire international community, including the UK, Australia, France, Germany, etc... was in favor of invading Afghanistan after 9/11.
Of course there is collateral damage. Of course we aren't doing our job. We have been focusing all our energy on the misguided war against Iraq, and no one has picked up the slack!!!!
Yep...I was going to post a song break from Alanis but then I saw you already took care if this for me.
Cap'n, she's gonna blow.... she canna take much more a'this!!!!!
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg