War on Afghanistan Kills as many as 9-11

[rah]

Originally posted by Chris 62

To bad you said that Rah, because the truth is the number of still missing is 3,000+, and the number of dead recovered is 1500.

Sorry, you seem to misunderstand my intent there. It has taken us 3 months to get the count to where it is. I was implying to Mark that maybe he should wait a few months before giving any credit to numbers coming out over there now. It seems that subtle hint went over his head.

My Wife's cousin is still on the missing list.
So I still take it a little too personal.

Civilians dead is never good. But I see a big difference between intentional and accidental. Doesn't make it right, but it makes a big difference.

RAH

[Felch]

If the Taliban had handed over bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qaeda for trial there would have been zero civilian casualties.

[Defiant]

Mark L,
Civilians were targeted and killed in the World Trade Center, we are not looking to kill civilians, if we were, for what purpose, just to say we can do it, bull****. If we wanted to kill Afghan Civilians we sure as hell could cut their population in half in a hurry. Why would we be sending food packets, the United States is the #1 contributor of aid to that country even before 9-11 you jackass. Its people like you that really piss me off. Someone should target your ass with a Tomahawk.

[orange]

Originally posted by Felch X
If the Taliban had handed over bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qaeda for trial there would have been zero civilian casualties.

Does that really justify 3000 innocent deaths? Just because their despotic semi-autonomous government didn't hand over bin Laden?

[Az]

OK , I almost don't troll at all , so don't crush me if it's pityful...

Originally posted by drake
Murder1 and manslaughter are two very different things yes.

so do you agree that the people that are heading the US operation against "terrorists" in afghanistan , are criminals , and should be tried ?

[orange]

Originally posted by Defiant
Mark L,
Civilians were targeted and killed in the World Trade Center, we are not looking to kill civilians, if we were, for what purpose, just to say we can do it, bull****. If we wanted to kill Afghan Civilians we sure as hell could cut their population in half in a hurry. Why would we be sending food packets, the United States is the #1 contributor of aid to that country even before 9-11 you jackass. Its people like you that really piss me off. Someone should target your ass with a Tomahawk.

Defiant - I don't think MarkL claims that these killings are not accidental. I think what he is trying to say is that it shouldn't be justified so easily by saying "we're at war". If we're so easily upset about our own country's innocent deaths, why aren't we upset about theirs?

[Defiant]

Orange,
Of coarse we care and want the least possible civilian deaths but think of the magnitude of it. We are dropping 2,000lb and sometimes 15,000lb daisy cutters and you really don't expect civilian causalties, that's absurd, but why dwell on it. I know it is not the Aghan people's fault and they are innocent but we cannot allow another World Trade Center and we will do everything our power to stop it.
If I read him wroing I apologize, but I won't apologize for how I feel or what the USA is doing.

[orange]

Originally posted by Defiant
Orange,
Of coarse we care and want the least possible civilian deaths but think of the magnitude of it. We are dropping 2,000lb and sometimes 15,000lb daisy cutters and you really don't expect civilian causalties

Maybe that's the problem. Maybe we're going about this war the wrong way. Maybe if we weren't dropping large bombs we wouldn't have to kill as many innocent civilians?

I know it is not the Aghan people's fault and they are innocent but we cannot allow another World Trade Center and we will do everything our power to stop it.

Will it really stop another WTC disaster from happening though? If we kill 3000 innocent civilians aren't we simply adding fuel to the anti-US fire?

You know, the way America is glamourized as doing the 'right thing' I would expect us to do the right thing by winning the war and not killing any civilians (or at least, being a whole lot more careful about how we wage war) so that we can come out of this thing and say "Ha! We beat you you terrorists sons of *****es, and we didn't have to resort to your level." But it's to late for that. It's not that we've gone down to their level, but we certainly haven't gone about it in the right way, at least IMO and in the opinions of a few others on this site.

That's all
If I read him wroing I apologize, but I won't apologize for how I feel or what the USA is doing. [/QUOTE]

[Defiant]

Orange,
We are going about this war exactly correct, how we won in Iraq is we literally pounded them into submission and the same thing is going on here, these massive bombs have tremendous demoralizing factor and getting pounded day in and day out will make you surrender in time, at least that is how it has worked so far and worked extremely well. Everywhere we attack they run and they are routed, easier to capture or kill than if they are dug in. I am not about to side with people who think we should not bomb them into submission cause of civilian causalties, the alternative is to send in the army and now we are looking at American causalties to achieve the same goal as the bombs are doing.

[Dis]

some of you guys need to go into the military. I'm serious. You know nothing or very little about warfare. But even short of that you don't understand missile guidance technology and all the variables that go into that. Technology is not perfect. The U.S. is not some technological whiz. In fact we are behind in some technologies compared to the rest of the world. We can't do everything.

It is impossible to achieve our objective without unneccessary deaths.

Our only other choice after Sep 11. would be to do nothing and try to use diplomacy.

So shall we do nothing to avoid innocent deaths and pray to god that we don't get bombed again? Clinton tried that and it didn't work.

[rah]

Every death means something.

If the number is really that high, I'll be dissapointed that we didn't do a better job. But I am convinced we tried to minimize it. Doesn't make it 100% right, but what can you say. Reality means some civilians were going to die.

On the plus side. By such a lightening quick win (at least in for the first objective), we may be able to save a lot of people that might have starved if the Taliban had stayed in power. Any chance to even the scales a little would help. The true numbers of those impacted (might have died to did die or who was saved) will never be known. So discussing the count seems a little morbid.

Hopefully we won't leave them in the lurch like the last time. From what everyone is saying, we won't.

RAH

[Faeelin]

Cry me a river.


The idea that theTaliban and Al-Queda haven't killed more than the US is a joke. Just ask the people of Kabul who shouted "USA! USA! USA!" and cheered whent he NA entered. And they know the NA at its worst, and the Taliban at its best.

There's a girl in my class from AFghanistan. Her family fled after the Taliban entered Kabul. She thinks that the USA should've acted sooner. Until you've lived in the country you're talking about, I suggest you refrain from commenting.

[Transcend]

Taliban and Al Qaeda love to list their losses as civilians for propaganda purposes. Actually, if I were Mullar Omar or Osama bin Laden, I would have done the same.

[orange]

Originally posted by Faeelin
The idea that theTaliban and Al-Queda haven't killed more than the US is a joke.

I'm not defending the Taliban, but erm...if you're going to say something, at least think logically.

Fat man and little boy caused more deaths than the Taliban, and that's just a few days of American history. I'm not saying all American history is like that, but that right there refutes what you have to say.

[MOBIUS]

Interesting...

Although Bin Laden was actually trying to kill civilians it appears that he has killed less than US - who weren't even trying...

The upshot is that about as many innocent Afghan civilians will have died as died in the 11-9 attacks, whether they were killed on purpose or by accident is irrelevant - the end result is that they are dead...!

Then of course there's the many thousands that fled their homes and became refugees to escape the US bombing - at least before the bombing began, the refugee camps were clearly identified and aid was getting through even if it required bribes and some of it was syphoned off...

Sure refugees were going to die under the Taliban, but at least the blame of who was responsible for their deaths could have laid clearly at the feet of the Taliban.

But after the attacks, people fled to all corners of the country with many new and isolated camps springing up all over the country, many more people displaced just before winter and what law and order there was in many areas has disintergrated into anarchy with lawless bandits (Taliban on the run?) on the prowl shooting up convoys here and there. IMO the aid situation is worse, not better! I think therefore that the US will be held accountable for many thousands more secondary deaths through starvation and exposure over this winter!

As for whether the US has actually killed as many as 3,000+ civilians, I'm actually surprised it's not more considering that the US itself is directly responsible for 75% of it's own military fatalities and almost 100% of it's wounded...

Christ they even almost killed the interim head of Afghanistan - imagine the sh*tstorm that would have happened then!!?