War on Afghanistan Kills as many as 9-11

[MichaeltheGreat]

This is too good of a joke, the OBL wish list with SOA/Whisc thrown in, but what the hell?

Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka


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

Which are defined as? KKMC is a hell of a long way from Mecca or Medina. And yes, with OBL/Al Qaeda and the fundamentalist mullahs that are fueling these movements expressed intent to forcibly expand their brand of fundamentalist islam, we should get out of the way and let them do it, global security concerns be damned. We are infidels, to be converted or destroyed. Backing off from these mother****ers and showing weakness isn't going to do anything but embolden them. Appeasement went out the window back in 1938.

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

Hamas, Amal, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, Black September, etc. etc. A whole slew of anti-Israel groups have been funded by neighboring muslim countries, for decades in some cases. The USSR was heavily involved in courting client states, including at various times Egypt, Iraq, and Syria, all of whom have fought Israel. Except for Israel and Jordan, which have signed peace treaties, all of the hostile Islamic states which confront Israel are dictatorial governments with national/ruler control over the economy and the ability to siphon what they choose into their militaries for potential action against Israel.

But yes, let's throw away what little leverage we have to restrain the Israelis, while letting the Jihadis prepare for Endlosung II

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

So they can be replaced by fundamentalist dictatorships. Yeah, that's progress.

4. Stop bombing Iraq. And end the sanctions.

The bombing is just gnatdick games. It should be stopped because it's ineffective. Sanctions should have been ended years ago, for the same reason. A new policy wrt Saddam Hussein needs to be developed, with the general idea that you deploy NBC weapons, you commit XYZ acts of aggression, and you cease to exist as a ruler.

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.

Simpering leftist horse****. It's OK if narco- or communist suported groups attempt to destabilize governments by whatever means they choose, but it's terrorist training camps if the US trains agents of internationally recognized governments subject to foreign-supported sedition and insurgency movements? It's not like (with the exception of Allende and a very few other cases, a small minority) there were viable democratic movements being thwarted there. Historical political reality in Latinamerica is a little more compex than the one-dimension right-wing Reaganites or leftist idiots would have you believe. When the only political alternatives are armed thugs on either extreme of the spectrum, and unarmed targets in the middle, you don't have many appetizing choices.

And contrary to the "terrorist" tag, training forces of governments resisting armed insurgency, or subject to armed insurgency, is hardly "terrorism" although it might be far less than kosher on several fronts. The people trained through SOA didn't decide to go bombing halfway around the world to impose their own foreign policy objectives.

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.

Diplomacy is a weapon of war. Kiss the Taleban's ass, and you could spend the next decade providing "evidence", that they reject unless and until you give them hard info on intelligence sources. Meanwhile, they buy time for their buds, and end up killing far more civilians (theirs and ours) than we have. The Taleban have been very effective at killing their own people in the past, and they were getting better at it as Omar got more loopy. But that's OK, I suppose.

And yes, the international court system is so effective in apprehending "criminals"

Items 1-4 will deprive Bin Laden of recruits since those are the major source of grievances against the US in the middle east.

Are you honestly naive enough to think that Jihadi who shape the entire world view of the masses of people they recruit from are unable to come up with any other recruiting device than death to the US? Without that excuse, they'd recruit to overthrow those infidel governments and establish true Islam throughout the world. This is not about the US. This is about their vision of Islam becoming the dominant force in the world, then the only force. I guarantee you, with your political slant, if this was a group of fundamentalist Christians in the US promoting the corresponding ideas, you'd be jumping up and down a lot more and justifying a lot less.

Without these kinds of policies Bin Laden would just be some crazy old guy in the mountains writing anti-American rants.

He is anyway. He has a following regardless.

Item 5 insures that the US doesn't create another Bin Laden

Bin Laden is not a product of SOA or any counter to it. He is a product of a desire for power, and for martyrdom. There will always be others, the only thing you can do is limit their effective reach.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Precision bombing means that the bombs hit 50% of the time, which means they miss 50% of the time.

I don't know where you got this from but it is woefully inaccurate.
Guided munitions have their accuracy measured by what is termed a CEP (or circular area probable). This is defined to be the radius within which, statistically, 50% of the munitions will fall.
This radius is different for every class of munition and defining a "hit" or a "miss" depends upon that radius interacting with the target - the size of which also varies.

Precision bombing does NOT mean that 50% of the bombs miss.

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by Mark L
3000 innocent Americans killed -> huge outcry
3500 innocent Afghans killed -> nobody cares

3000 dead Americans = wrong
3500 dead Afgans = wrong

Bush and others: wrong+wrong=right

When did Bush say anything about payback? This is about making the world safe for democracy. I'm guessing you live in a democracy. Heck, if Bill Clinton were doing the same thing (which he would be), you would freaking be worshipping him! So shove it!

[Sirotnikov]

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

I'd like to think, that the fact that we've ended one of the most horrible regimes since the middle ages, and that we've nearly annihilated the basis of Al-Qaida, gives some purpose to the deaths of so many innocent people.

True, I'd be happier if they wouldn't have died in the process. But they did.

So I'm justifying their deaths with the goal - clearing out the taliban and al-qaeda.

I'm very sure that though we may have killed hundreds of civilians we have saved the lives of at least that many.

We saved westerners from Al-Qaeda, and Afghanis from the Taliban.

Do you understand that we've saved a nation from opression?

Sure, the NA may prove to be bad. But not as bad. And now there are measures taken to try and promise a good future for Afghanistan.

I wouldn't mind at all, if now, a fund would be made for the Afghani people. Infact I think it's a good idea. They deserve it as much as the Americans. They suffered from the same people. Plus it would ensure positive developement in the country, assuming the money goes for the civilians and not for private pockets, or to provide other terrorists.

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?

What other options are there?

Doing nothing - risking the positive bet that another WTC will happen

Sending ground troops - just as risky to Afghanis - who can tell if a person is taliban or not? They could just change Turban colors. Not to mention stray bullets kill just as much.

Sending troops also then becomes very risky for US troops. No country wishes to lose citizens.

So the question finally comes down to:
Whether you want more dead Afghanis or more dead Americans?
For America the answer is clear.

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?

But that's irrelevant.

America didn't kill 3000 innocent civilians to stop another WTC from hapenning.
America kicked the Taleban and Al-Qaeda. The 3000 innocent civilians is a by-product. Not goal.

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)

Well that just proves you are watching too many movies or reading fairy tales.

There's no frigging way on earth that war can be waged without civilian casualties.

Also, as I've explained erlier - when it comes to being more carefull - America was already very carefull.

The only other option is ground troops - which is to no extent more carefull, for the Afghanis or Americans.

And the option of bombing less - that would have just made the casulaties build up over a longer period of time. Especially since we would give less support to NA and that would make battles longer and bloodier.

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."

That's nice.

But your main assumption is that every killing is the same, whether intentional or unintentional. Untintentional killing is not Al-Qaeda's level.

And then you could argue that killing = killing and killing the Taleban and Al-Qaida in war (and that's what goes on in a war - you kill people) instead of trying all the 1000s of Taleban and Al-Qaeda personel, means that we're in "the same level".

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.

Might I add that it's a shame that liberal humanists tend to give in to ramblings by extremists, who love to play on that.

Notice how muslim speakers, that justified the 5000 dead in the WTC attacks, cried about the "innocent lives" in Afghanistan.

WESTERNERS: YOUR EMOTIONS ARE BEING PLAYED WITH.

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

Here's that great logic.

Of course unbased since 1500 recovered + 3000 missing equals 4500.

This is while that murky biased report talks about 3500.

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...!

Again that logic:

I assume then that different counts in court are irrelevant:
Murder 1, Man Slaughter, Accidental Killing - that's all bull****.

We should all give the evil murderers a DP.

Oh wait, but that makes us murderers too.

Also, a complete misregard of the concept of war - where it is accepted that civilian casualties may be caused.

The denial of the concept proves idiocy and pompousness.

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...

That is ignoring the thousands that fled Afghanistan when Taliban took over.

And ingoring the fact that the refugees now how a better nation to come back to.

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.

So now you don't care if they would have died under the Taliban, but you condemn America for temporarily making them refugees?

! I think therefore that the US will be held accountable for many thousands more secondary deaths through starvation and exposure over this winter!

So had they didn't attack, the deaths through starvation would be ok, since they were caused by the Taliban, and that makes it right?

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...

You still haven't got one serious source giving you a number.

I can't understand how can a university based in newhampshire claim to have ANY numbers regarding to the attack in Afghanistan?

Let's not forget that they used their soccer stadium as an execution grounds for women who learned to read

Or women who laughed, or women who used to speak back to their husbands, or women who weren't covered enough...

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

I disagree.
Well, maybe they're not innocent, but they're jsut as civilians as those who know nothing about the bad government like kids and such.

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.

I must use this to make a point:

The issue of targeting is also important. Arafat ordered the attacks with the specific purpose of killing civilians and spreading terror. Our purpose in bombing the Palestinian Authority and the incursions is to rid the country of the mindset of it's dangerous government and rid of it's terrorist groups. If innocent people die in the process, that is unfortunate but necessary for the greater good.


Somehow, with this, people seem to agree less.

However I'm pleased to say, that most people who agree to the same tet with America, come to see that it's the same here.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

Allow to disagree:

The casulaties were taken into consideration and were expected.

America did knowignly put the lives of Afghanis in risk and caused some of them to die.

However it is still not intentional, since the US hasn't targeted civilians, nor did it intended to cause their death.

It merely accepted their deaths as a possible outcome.

That doesn't make them intentional.

[Sirotnikov]

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

Let's prove this wrong.

Assuming: If you are set out to eliminate A, who targeted civilians, yet you know that it would endanger civilians, you are as good as A.

Example: A murderor kills and robs several civilians. A police officer chases the murderor, thereby putting him in pressure and making him risk civilians.

Furthermore, the policeman shoots the murderor to stop him from running away and endangering other civilians. The policeman knows there are civilians around (it's a city) and a stray bullet might hit someone.

According to Assumption: The policeman is just as bad as the murderor.

Conclusion: We must disperse police forces around the world, as they are just as bad.

See why this is rediculous?

[Sirotnikov]

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

No.

America doesn't willingly and knowingly harbors terrorists, nor does it support them and keeps close ties with them.

Nor, does it refuse to deal with them.

Nor does it opress it's own people.

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

This is not a concensus.

Saudi Arabia invited the troops there to contain Saddam.

America is not an occupying force, nor is it a threat to Muslim holy areas.

American soldiers are not stationed in Muslim holy areas.

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

The Israelis are America's allies.

We provide america with intelligence, weapon technology, commerce, computer technology etc.

We also provide a safe contact in the Middle East.

Those are the reasons why Israel get's money and weapons.



There are absolutely no reasons why Palestinians should get money.

There are reasons why they shouldn't:

1) Terracts performed by Palestinians, often by the leadership of Arafat targeted not only Israeli civilian lives but also American civilian lives, and infact several americans died as a result.

2) During the Gulf War Arafat openly embraced Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

3) During the Cold War, the PLO as other arab entities and countries were supported by USSR. They are supported by Russia to this day.

4) The palestinian goverment isn't stable, nor is it reliable. Americans will get nothing in return.

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

But that goes against your call for support for Palestinians. Contrary to their say, their government was never elected in the full scale of the word.

I'm a neighbour and never heard of elections.

They probably were passed ballods with the options : Do you support our rightfull leader Arafat? Yes / No.
This is the same tactic employed in Syria, Iraq and Egypt.

4. Stop bombing Iraq. And end the sanctions.

The bombs target military facilities and factories.

The sanctions aren't starving the people. Had they not been, the people would ahve starved anyway. But also there would be NBC weapons in Iraq.

Evidence show that people in northern Iraq, out of Saddam's reach, live very well under the sanctions, proving it is Saddam that's robbing them of food.

. 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.

Utilize the International War Crimes Tribunal, diplomatic channels and the international court system to bring these criminals to justice.

WTC wasn't a war crime.

No reason why this should be internationlized.

Furthermore, a court is no replacement for War.

Taliban stated that they would hand Bin Laden over if the US showed them proof of his guilt.

The Taliban also stated that the US is the great Satan and declared war on the US.

They also offered a trial in a neutral third country or under Islamic law (which would probably be harsher)

A neutral third country of Islamic origin which would have been biased towards terrorist OBL.

So call their bluff.

Too expensive and time consuming.

At a bare minum all diplomatic options should be persued before resorting to actions which kill innocent people.

All diplomatic options were persued.
They were offered a diplomatic option. They refused.

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

True, this would stop this specific incarnation of terror, but ONLY this specific incarnation of terror.

Complying with items 1-4 before terminating Bin Laden would be a grave error and a reward to terrorism.

That would prove terrorist that terror makes people change, and would show that terror is a legitimate "shortcut" to getting things done.

Appeasement went out the window back in 1938.

All diplomatic options were explored.

Czhechoslovakia was given away, forcefully.

Result:
Strengthening Hitler's war machine

Had there been no tolerance, millions of deaths, including 8 million horrible deaths in death and prison camps, of jews, gypsies and gays would have been prevented.

[Sirotnikov]

Hamas, Amal, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, Black September, etc. etc. A whole slew of anti-Israel groups have been funded by neighboring muslim countries, for decades in some cases. The USSR was heavily involved in courting client states, including at various times Egypt, Iraq, and Syria, all of whom have fought Israel. Except for Israel and Jordan, which have signed peace treaties, all of the hostile Islamic states which confront Israel are dictatorial governments with national/ruler control over the economy and the ability to siphon what they choose into their militaries for potential action against Israel.

true.


Furthermore.

The Palestinians are being funded by the EU.

The Palestinians are being funded by neighbouring Islamic states.

The palestinians are being funded by private people such as Bin Laden and other millionares

The Palestinians are being funded by western democraies through store fronts the PLO, Hamas, Jihad, PFLP and friends have - mosques, charity organizations, stores, crime organizations.

Bin Laden has a chain of stores selling honey in Saudia arabia and other islamic countries in the gulf area.

[Hoek]

I do not support Arafat or the PLO, and I think that Israel has a definite and clear right to respond. But, I don't think that the two issues are the same. First of all, Osama bin Laden is not the leader of any nation of peoples, whereas Arafat has generally been recognized as the leader of the Palestinian people. Second, Israelis and Palestinians are going to either live together or die together. I do not object to Israel putting significant pressure on Arafat, because that is the only way anything is going to get done. But-Israel needs to realize that the end result will eventually have to be negotiations with him if they plan on having any peace. Killing Arafat is not a feasable solution. Arafat must take root out terrorism--that is his responsibility as a leader; Israel must let him, however. There is one more very important thing that Sharon must do: remove settlers from the West Bank and Gaza. If he does this, and gives Arafat a chance to actually root out the terrorists, then nobody can accuse Israel of anything wrong. If Arafat does not do what is necessary, given a chace, nobody will be able to support him.

One thing I would also like to point out: I would bet that had none of this happened (WTC attacks), the same people who are criticizing the war on terrorism would be calling for action against Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. Let's not forget Kosovo or Somolia or Bosnia here: the same people who supported war for "humanitarian" reasons are the same ones *****ing about war to prevent terrorism. Your bluff has been called. You need to quit arguing for the sake of arguing because nobody thinks you are as morally superior as you think of yourself. In finding any reason to criticize the U.S., you have found yourself siding with the worst humanity has to offer. You all try to pride yourself on intelligence, yet you prove your simplistic thinking in your simplistic arguments.