War on Afghanistan Kills as many as 9-11

[MichaeltheGreat]

I like the notion that somebody can sit on his fat ass 10,000 miles away and come up with an accurate casualty count based on compiling mostly second-hand reportage of rumors.

Most press accounts admit that they never saw the bodies, were not at the scene, and were given information which could not be independently confirmed. Yes, that makes a great basis for a study.

Economics, international relations, and women's studies? Sounds like a poster boy for "those who can't do, teach" syndrome?

I wonder where the great professor Herold bought his diploma?

[Ted Striker]

Ummm...Mr. Joe,

How many civilians were killed by the Taliban?

How many would have died had we not destroyed them?

How many were severly oppressed under Taliban rule?

How many women had to spend the rest of their lives under a bedspread with holes in it?

How many died because the Taliban REFUSED to hand over the terrorists even after repeated requests to turn them over? They had a choice! And so chose to bring destruction to their own people.

Oh yeah, how many Marxist/Maoist/Communist terrorist group casualties have there been in the year 2000?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Faboba
Who is it said; 'war is the greatest form of birth control' ?

Quite false in fact. After a war there is alway a 'baby boom' in preparation !

[ZoboZeWarrior]

We cannot critized US to have killed citizen. It was a war process.

But we ask ourself : Have US tried to minimize the civilian casualties ?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Sombody's got to say it, and I guess it will be me:

All of the civilian casualties were intentional. Every last one of them.

It's like this: the US decided that the way it was going into Afganistan was with a massive bombing campaign. Now, in spite of what official Pentagon propoganda might say (and it was more circumspect this time, after the pathetic lies of the Gulf War), you cannot conduct a massive bombing campaign and not kill civilians! Therefore, the decision to conduct a bombing campaign is, ipso facto, a decision to kill civilians. Sure, it wasn't the reason we went in, but it would be accurate to say that our logic was, "we have a goal, and thousands of innocent civilians will have to die for us to attain it." This, it is worth pointing out, is exactly the logic of OBL. There is no moral high ground on this particular issue that rises any higher than "But, Mom, HE started it!"

[Hoek]

That's ridiculous. It is not the reasoning of Osama bin Laden, because he specifically went after civilians. The fact that civilians died in the bombing was inevitable, as it is inevitable that any war will result in casualties. The question is whether or not civilian casualties are acceptable if it results in a positive outcome. Look at Japan: when we dropped the bombs, yes, 250000 people died, but Japan immediately surrendered and the war was over. The Atomic bombs, therefore, saved lives.

[RUFFHAUS 8]

Orange writes: << MarkL is Dutch. >>

Fine. Thanks for the clarification. It's too bad that we all don't live in a world of tulips, cheese, and lax enforcement of marajuana use and prostitution. But we don't.

However, one could also say that MarkL should be thanking and kissing the ass of every American he encounters rather than antagonizing us because our president is LEADING us. Maybe you've forgotten that the UNITED STATES with Brittish assistance liberated your country from the Germans. Americans fought and died, killing thousands of innocent civilians to save the Dutch (among others) from Nazi oppression in WWII.

Oh yeah. We didn't start that mess either. And not crosspolinate threads too much, but maybe the Dutchboys could have defended themselves better if the civilian populace owned firearms.

(and)

<< The bastards that did this are already dead. The majority of the bastards that funded them are not dead yet. I'd say we probably have killed more innocent Afghans in this war than Taliban or terrorist supporters. >>

Some of the bastards are already dead. Not all of them. And there are still plenty of cowardly bastards oput there willing to do this again. We need to get those bastards too.

I don't know where you get your facts about how many "innocent" Afghans, or Taliban terrorists that "we" have killed, but I'd be willing to bet good money that the data you have now is inaccurate. Furthermore, what is the point of counting casulties in the first place? Would any of this be justified if it killed one "innocent" Afghan? Two? Five? Ten? One Hundred? Where do you draw the line at how many "innocent" people it's okay to kill?

It might also be argued that these people are not innocent at all. Afghanistan is harboring an international terrorist responsible for thousands of deaths. I've yet to hear just what you and 'Mr. Turn the Other Cheek' would propose be done in response to the terrorist attacks in September, and the attack on the USS Cole, etc. etc.?

The only non-violent solution that I've seen anywhere was the idea that we parachute Jesse Jackson into Kabul, and let him bore Bin Laden to death, thus fighting terror with terror!

[mindseye]

Can't say I'm impressed with this guy's sources. Example for one incident:

DAWN, (English language Pakistani daily newspaper), the Guardian of London, the Independent, International Herald Tribune, the Scotsman, the Observer, and the BBC News.

Care to place a bet that the Guardian et al merely quoted the original DAWN report? You can't count those as multiple sources! Smells like a load of bullocks to me.

[Chris 62]

You would think this stupidity would have died the quick death it deserved, and yet I see a number of people accepted this BS as gospil without even questioning the sources or the validity.
Rah, I'm surprisied you give this nonsense even an air of credibility.
Mobius, see what I was talking about with you lately?
You are ALWAYS ready to believe the worst, withour questioning this at all.
For shame boys, such gulibility.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Sombody's got to say it, and I guess it will be me:

All of the civilian casualties were intentional. Every last one of them.

Somebody's got to say this, and I'm the best at it:

It's like this: the US decided that the way it was going into Afganistan was with a massive bombing campaign.

"Massive bombing campaign" is a press buzz-word, that in your mind and others envokes pictures of swarms of heavy bombers systematicly laying waste to cities.
What was actually done was precision strikes against identified targets with smart munitions.
There are people all over their now reporting, why is it there are ZERO reports of massive civilian causalities?
Because there wern't any, get this stupid picture of "massive bombing campaign" from your minds.

Now, in spite of what official Pentagon propoganda might say (and it was more circumspect this time, after the pathetic lies of the Gulf War), you cannot conduct a massive bombing campaign and not kill civilians!

What lies from the Gulf war?
That the Iraqis were smashed in 100 hours after a sucessful air campaign?
My previous answer already dispelled the "Massive" deal, so no need to address that.
There simply wern't massive civilian deaths, despite what you hand-ringers so desperatly want to believe.

Therefore, the decision to conduct a bombing campaign is, ipso facto, a decision to kill civilians.

Pure non-sense.
The campaign was conducted to suppress Taliban artillery, supply, and command infrasturcture in phase one, and it was 100% sucessful.
Phase two (where the B-52s show up) was designed to destroy Taliban and Al Queda cave complexes and hiding places, and this also looks to be right on the mark.
Get over this "bombing' thing, your talking out of your ass.

Sure, it wasn't the reason we went in, but it would be accurate to say that our logic was, "we have a goal, and thousands of innocent civilians will have to die for us to attain it."

This is the biggest line of bull-sh1t I ever heard, and is totally contrary to the war as fought, and an insult to the USA and it's armed forces.
Your now moving from someone I vaguly respected into pure jack-ass territory.

This, it is worth pointing out, is exactly the logic of OBL.

Yes it is, and we do not, and have never subscribed to it.
I suggest you confine your remarks to subjects you know something about, because it sure isn't this.

There is no moral high ground on this particular issue that rises any higher than "But, Mom, HE started it!"

Again, Non-sense.
This is about murderers (whom you are trying to make excuses for by saying there is no moral high-ground) and the people who put a stop to them.
Lose these foolish notions, sir.
They are a dis-service to us all, as well as excedingly foolish in the extreme.

[chequita guevara]

Precision bombing means that the bombs hit 50% of the time, which means they miss 50% of the time. If they miss, they gotta go somewhere. Many of those have hit innocent civies. How many, I refuse to specualte. There are, however, a number of refugees in Pakistan telling stories of their houses being hit and members of their familes getting killed. Most of these people have said they were opposed to the Taliban as well.

I don't think you can "precision" bomb a city without hurting lots of innocent folks. In this, Rufus is correct, we are aware that the deaths of civilians will result from our actions, therefore their deaths are deliberate. We are knowingly and willing taking their lives.

Regardless of the actual numbers, we should be as horrified by the deaths of these innocents as we are of the deaths caused on 9/11. Many people seem to calmly accept the deaths of Afganis, and then turn around and claim that Afganis have no respect for life.

I think the war is a horrible tragedy. It is a necessary evil. Despite what I think of the United States and its role in perpetuating a world system of injustice and poverty, it would be irresponsible to let al-Qaeda get away with the murders of so many people. They will not stop and have shown time and again they care nothing for those who get in their way. They killed far more Muslims than Americans in their attacks on the embassies. I think we can at least be remorseful for the innocents we kill. I would hope we can be better than the enemy. Don't cops feel horrible when they accidental kill a passer-by while trying to shoot a suspect?

[rah]

After rereading most of the posts in this thread and in others, it does seem that with the exception of a few extremists, most people are expressing concern over the loss of civilian life. Even though people did expect there to be some. I don't like arguing numbers of what would be considered acceptable.

I don't see anybody (except maybe one) celebrating their deaths, unlike some of the celebrations that followed the WTC destruction.

This coupled with most of the peoples desire and support of anyway to minimize civilian losses makes it a lot easier for people to still think they are taking the high road on this. Whether that be right or not. Intentions are important.

RAH
And I'm not gonna tell that cop to never fire at a criminal again because he missed once. Hopefully, I'd try to give him more training or better tools to minimize similar occurances in the future.

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
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.

This is more or less correct. I went to their meetings regularly for about a year to hear their ideas out. I agreed to build their website for them but I haven't been to any of there meetings in a while and am no longer maintaining their site. However, they apparently haven't found a new webmaster. I've read all of Marx's major works and a good amount of Hegel & Dunayeskaya and I have some major disagreements with them. I do consider myself an anarchist.

[Joe R. Golowka]

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.

The United States also harbors terrorists. Should America be bombed?

[Dis]

yes americans should bomb americans- well no one else is going to do it. so we might as well bomb ourselves

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by RUFFHAUS 8
I've yet to hear just what you and 'Mr. Turn the Other Cheek' would propose be done in response to the terrorist attacks in September, and the attack on the USS Cole, etc. etc.?

1. Remove all US troops from the Middle East, especially Muslim holy areas.

2. Stop giving Isreal weapons & money. The Palestinians don't get any, so why should Israel.

3. Stop supporting Monarchies and dictatorships, especially Saudi Arabia.

4. Stop bombing Iraq. And end the sanctions.

5. Stop sponsoring terrorists. The US should shut down the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation and all other of it's terrorist training camps. The fact that this hasn't been done shows this "war on terrorism" is a fraud.

6. Utilize the International War Crimes Tribunal, diplomatic channels and the international court system to bring these criminals to justice. The Taliban stated that they would hand Bin Laden over if the US showed them proof of his guilt. The US declined. They also offered a trial in a neutral third country or under Islamic law (which would probably be harsher). Bush said, "no negotiations." Perhaps the Taliban were lying, these could be PR bluffs. So call their bluff. At a bare minum all diplomatic options should be persued before resorting to actions which kill innocent people.

Items 1-4 will deprive Bin Laden of recruits since those are the major source of grievances against the US in the middle east. Without these kinds of policies Bin Laden would just be some crazy old guy in the mountains writing anti-American rants. Item 5 insures that the US doesn't create another Bin Laden