War on Afghanistan Kills as many as 9-11

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Worse, he's the webmaster of the Marxist-Humanist Forum Homepage.

Oh come off it. If you can understand what Joe writes he obviously has nothing to do with the Marxist-Humanists. If you've ever listened to them, or tried to read any of their writings, you'll understand what I mean. Heck, I've read both Marx and Hegel and I can't figure out what they're talking about (note: they are Marxist-Hegelians or Hegelian-Marxists, it's hard to tell without being able to understand them).

Joe is an anarchist. Communists and anarchists are not fans of each other, though we may ally on immediate goals. I still think some of them need a good ass-whuppin' from a local Teamster. Espacially after that crap they pulled at the Haymarket Martyrs monument back in '98. Definition of irony: cops defending anarchists from the working class.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by 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

When did you start thinking things I agreed with?

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Oh come off it. If you can understand what Joe writes he obviously has nothing to do with the Marxist-Humanists. If you've ever listened to them, or tried to read any of their writings, you'll understand what I mean. Heck, I've read both Marx and Hegel and I can't figure out what they're talking about (note: they are Marxist-Hegelians or Hegelian-Marxists, it's hard to tell without being able to understand them).

Well, maybe he's not Marxist-Humanist, but look at this:

http://struggle.net/mhf/

Comments on our website should be sent to Joe R. Golowka

And the E-mail given is the same as for the Joe R. Golowka on Poly.

So maybe he's not Marxist-Humanist but he pretends to be, at least...

And actually I have attempted to read Marx, but found him exceedingly dull. I made the mistake of reading Das Capital rather than the Communist manifesto. I stopped when he stated that price is proportional to man-hours spent in production.

[chequita guevara]

Value, not price, two different things. And it's only equal to the amount of socially-necessary labor, which means that an idiot worker doesn't increase the value of his product by taking all day. It also means that the products of an extremely skilled worker are even more vaulable ... just like in real life.

As for Joe ... I'm shocked. But what the heck are you doing looking at the website of the NIU Marxist-Humanists??? Without speaking for Joe, I'll bet they just asked him to do their website since he's political and knows how to do it. But Joe has stated he's an anarchist in the past.

[Shi Huangdi]

1. This will save more Afghan lives long-run due to the civil war ending.

2. Now the Afghan people have more freedom.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Value, not price, two different things. And it's only equal to the amount of socially-necessary labor, which means that an idiot worker doesn't increase the value of his product by taking all day. It also means that the products of an extremely skilled worker are even more vaulable ... just like in real life.

You're right, but Marx is still wrong.

As for Joe ... I'm shocked. But what the heck are you doing looking at the website of the NIU Marxist-Humanists??? Without speaking for Joe, I'll bet they just asked him to do their website since he's political and knows how to do it. But Joe has stated he's an anarchist in the past.

Stumbled upon it. Long story.

[Faeelin]

[/QUOTE]
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. [/QUOTE]

Oh, come on. You know I was talking about the war in Afghanistan. And most historians agree that an invasion of Japan would've cost millions of deaths.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Goingonit

You're right, but Marx is still wrong.

Care to back that assertion up?

Stumbled upon it. Long story.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Apostle 83]

Every life is meaningful. The Afghans are beautiful people, and I'm sure that when they look back in their own history, they will honor those that died (whether it be through US attacks on the Taliban and Al Qada) as heroes.

You see, we're not talking about a nation of fools, we are talking about a nation of supressed individuals. Action in this nation has been warranted, both through the foreign policy of the government, and the domestic. In my opinion, their domestic policy alone is enough to justify their liberation.

Call me a brainwashed US zealot, but we are doing nothing more than help the Afghanis help themselves. They are fighting this war, and we are going to help them stop this cycle at the conclusion of the current conflict.

[uh Clem]

How altruistic of us...

[Hoek]

To say that our killing 3000 civilians in Afghanistan is equally as bad as terrorists killing 3000 Americans is simply wrong. To call them both wrong is one thing, but this notion that "two wrongs don't make a right" is played out and misleading. Through a manipulation of language, you essentially equate the two casualty counts as equally wrong. If you are going to use some silly math representation of morality, you should express it as a ratio since you are trying to compare, not add. Innumerable lives were saved in the process of killing 3000 civilians. Let's not forget that it's the Taliban that would have forced starvation on its citizens this winter with a 100% tax on incoming grain aid. Let's not forget that they used their soccer stadium as an execution grounds for women who learned to read. I'm not saying that human rights abuses are justification for war (they are not), but I'm saying that those deaths contributed to the saving of many Afghani and American lives. This is the same thing with Japan and the bomb. The Japanese have consistently characterized themselves as victims since we used the nukes, but many fail to realize the extreme human costs that would have resulted in an invasion. People seem to forget that the two nuclear attacks combined killed less people than the Japanese rape of Nanking.

This idea of "innocent civilians" is not universal either. In the case of Japan, prior to the nuclear attacks. the Japanese emporer issued an order that made ever able-bodied "civilian" between 16 and 65 a combatant. It would not be fair to say that in bombing the Japanese, we were bombing "innocent" people. Indeed some were innocent such as children and such. But citizens who are complacent with a bad government are not entirely innocent. Beyond that, who exactly is to be considered a "civilian?" Are government officials who do not serve in the military "civilians?" If this is so, then I would imagine that a large chunk of that number for Afghanistan includes government workers who were not part of the armed forces. Those are clearly not "innocent" civilians.

The issue of targeting is also important. Bin Laden ordered the attacks with the specific purpose of killing civilians and spreading terror. Our purpose in bombing Afghanistan is to rid the country of a dangerous government and terrorist group. If innocent people die in the process, that is unfortunate but necessary for the greater good. Bin Laden's purpose, however, is to kill civilians. Even the targeting of the Nuclear bomb was military-related: the four targets that were selected all held special military importance and the bomb was used to harm their military more than kill civilians (the bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the nuclear attacks). They were precursors to an invasion...the Truman administration did not fully expect the Japanese to surrender.

[Q Classic]

It's a war. What do you expect?

You can't fight a war without killing people. It's a fact. Get over it.

[uh Clem]

But citizens who are complacent with a bad government are not entirely innocent.

Which of course, is the bin Laden argument: you are responsible for the actions of your government.

Therefore, the ARE no innocents. You included.

Any notion that the Afghans at least to some degree "had it coming" because of the Taliban is morally bankrupt, obviously, but it's also historically nonsense. It would be no trick at all to find lots of people in Washington (and yes, London & Moscow as well) who are vastly more responsible for the rise of the Taliban than the average citizen of Afghanistan ever was. Most people there appear to have been merely trying to survive as best they can.

I'm not singling out one of the "great powers" here. It's in the nature of the powerful to toy with the weak and use them for their own purposes, and there's no reason to think it's any different here. But please don't tell me that it's somehow the fault of those on whom the bombs are landing...any more than US support for the government of Saudi Arabia is the fault of the NYFD.

[Hoek]

First of all, the argument that there is absolut innocence and absolute guilt is nonesense. That is what I'm trying to point out. I am not arguing that the Afghans "had it coming" at all. I am arguing that there is not this black and white distinction. Is Hitler "innocent" of killing the Jews because he did not actually kill them himself with his own gun? Is the SS soldier who shoots a jew "innocent" because he was just following orders from the fuher? There are gradations of innocence and guilt, and the line is not clear. Were the German people innocent because they were not directly involved in the killing process or the decision-making power or are they guilty because they put him in power and did nothing to stop him. It's the dilemna of the "good samaritan" laws: just because someone didn't shoot another person doesn't mean they are "innocent" with regard to that persons death if they could have done something about it. What about when you have a conscripted army? The Japanese and German people are less guilty than the emperor, but they need to share the blame to some extent. I personally think that most of the people in Afghanistan are indeed innocent of the crimes of the Taliban since the Taliban crushed any opposition. I do not justify their deaths by saying that the Afghans were responsible for what their government did, I justify their deaths by the chance that many more deaths would have resulted had they not died. I justify using the bomb on Japan both by the fact that it saved lives and that the Japanese people were in fact largely responsible for their government's actions and did nothing to resist it. They share part of the blame and we should not put their deaths on an equal plane with the people who died in the World Trade Center. The difference is also that Osama bin Laden ultimately does not have military goals. Everyone who died in the World Trade Center was not "collateral damage"--they were the target. If a bomb hits a government office and some civilians die in the process, their deaths are unintended. Osama bin Laden does not argue that there are gradations of guilt and innocence; he argues that everyone in America is equally guilty for what he views as wrong foreign policy moves. His argument is that the people in the World Trade Center were as responsible for there being troops in Saudi Arabia as the president or secretary of defense.

[DanS]

I don't believe it's the case that more civilians have died in Afghanistan than 9/11. It seems ridiculous to take the Taliban's word for it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28484-2001Dec11.html