Solidarity and Hate.

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 04:07
VIEWED: 9106
PAGE 8 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

KWICKO

Friday, August 31, 2012 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
1) You have shown no evidence to support the claim that "the vast majority of those we killed were people who wanted to kill us, or supported the people who wanted to kill us."

You're right. The reason for that is there is no good count of the number of insurgence killed. That being said there is also no evidence to say that the number of civilians is higher that the number of civilians killed. Logicly speaking unless one thinks that military is purposly tageting civilians the number of insurgence killing is going to be higher.

So you think the number of insurgents killed is going to be higher than the number of civilians killed? Any kind of cites to backstop that assertion? I've heard several instances where we did indeed "target" civilians - wedding parties in at least a few of them. As one reporter put it regarding drone strikes, "If you have 20 civilians at an event, and one suspected insurgent, then 21 people are going to die in that strike."

And there is no evidence to say that civilians are not being purposely targeted.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

BYTEMITE

Friday, August 31, 2012 3:43 AM

Quote:
How much of that goes on? Any citations?

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/a-blood-stained-rifle-and-qu
estions-of-the-taliban/

It's pretty common. In any case, as I said, this is all very complicated.

Quote:
No, because we are not purposely targeting civilians. That is the difference.

Believe as you wish. Eventually according to this methodology everyone becomes a combatant.

Quote:
Sorry, there is none. Sometimes you just have to shoot them before they shoot you.

Not acceptable. This is a vicious cycle, self-perpetuating violence and hatred, and the logic and morality of this option is not justifiable - the situation will not improve taken to the logical conclusion. Time to try a third option.

KWICKO

Friday, August 31, 2012 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
No, because we are not purposely targeting civilians. That is the difference.

Believe as you wish. Eventually according to this methodology everyone becomes a combatant.

"Eventually" just got a whole lot closer, too. The Pentagon has now decided that any male of military age who is killed by our forces is an "enemy combatant" by dint of being in the area. See, it's not killing civilians if you stop calling them civilians!

Of course, the flip side of that is that every American working on - or even NEAR - every base or in or around every embassy is now an "enemy combatant" and a fair target for anyone who has a beef against us.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

M52NICKERSON

Friday, August 31, 2012 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you think the number of insurgents killed is going to be higher than the number of civilians killed? Any kind of cites to backstop that assertion? I've heard several instances where we did indeed "target" civilians - wedding parties in at least a few of them. As one reporter put it regarding drone strikes, "If you have 20 civilians at an event, and one suspected insurgent, then 21 people are going to die in that strike."

And there is no evidence to say that civilians are not being purposely targeted.

The total number of civilians killed, no. I think the number of civilians directly killed by US forces is not high as the number of insurgence killed.

Estimates from the War in Iraq bear this out. Around 11,000 civilians directly killed by US forces while upwards of 55,000 insurgences were killed.

http://thevelvetrocket.com/2009/11/06/how-many-insurgents-killed-in-ir
aq/

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/15/us-coalition-directly-killed-over-1
1000-civilians-in-iraq-in-five-years/

As far as the US not targeting civilians that is the militaries position. Heck it would be simpler for them if they were waging a total war, but they are not.

http://belfercenter.hks.harvard.edu/publication/18227/targeting_civili
ans_in_war.html

"In Targeting Civilians in War, Downes explores several major recent conflicts, including the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Civilian casualties occurred in each campaign, but they were not the aim of military action. In these cases, Downes maintains, the achievement of quick and decisive victories against overmatched foes allowed democracies to win without abandoning their normative beliefs by intentionally targeting civilians. Whether such “restraint” can be guaranteed in future conflicts against more powerful adversaries is, however, uncertain."

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

M52NICKERSON

Friday, August 31, 2012 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/a-blood-stained-rifle-and-qu
estions-of-the-taliban/

It's pretty common. In any case, as I said, this is all very complicated.

There is no doubt it is complicated. As the article states it is hard to fault the soliders who killed the boy because of the circumstances.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Believe as you wish. Eventually according to this methodology everyone becomes a combatant.

If they pick up a gun they become a combatant.

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Not acceptable. This is a vicious cycle, self-perpetuating violence and hatred, and the logic and morality of this option is not justifiable - the situation will not improve taken to the logical conclusion. Time to try a third option.

What is the third option? The only way this stops is when both side decide they have had enough and want peace. That's the thing it takes both sides unless one simple decided to give in and let the other side do as it pleases. As unacceptable as you may find it when someone takes aim at you with a gun there are only really two options. Kill them, or get killed.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

BYTEMITE

Friday, August 31, 2012 5:59 PM

I think we need to stop before our purging the middle east of threats gets more out of control than it is. We killed Osama - should have done that earlier. But all of these proxy fights and unrelated issues, I don't know why we're even involved in them.

Actually, I think we've possibly dug our own grave, I don't think the people of these nations will ever stop coming now. This is a situation where I wish cooler heads had prevailed. They're not going to be won over by bread baskets. But I have to believe there's a better option than killing them to every child - so I still have to try the alternative.

Quote:
As unacceptable as you may find it when someone takes aim at you with a gun there are only really two options. Kill them, or get killed.

May you never find yourself in such a situation.

NIKI2

Friday, August 31, 2012 6:38 PM

Quote:
What we have is security theater that makes us feel safer when we're not. Antagonism against us is kind of at an all time high, and even our allies don't like us nowadays.

.....

They thought they were making everything better, when really, it's just made things completely chaotic. And I suspect once we leave the warlords and theocrats will take over, so that's definitely not better. It'd be about the same really if we hadn't killed so many people, so that pushes it into "worse" territory

.....

the violent factions that are useful to us tend to be screwed up beyond measure. It's why we back totalitarian dictators and vote-riggers and all these types then turn on them a few years later to install someone else when they get too full of themselves. The only reason we get involved is because of politics and economic maneuvering. It's why we don't get involved in places like Sudan - although if we did, we'd probably screw that up to. No one in power here really cares about the people over there, and it shows.

I agree with all of that.

Quote:
From their viewpoint, every American soldier killed makes their country a safer place, and brings them one step closer to driving the occupying oppressors of Imperial America from their land.

From THEIR viewpoint, yes, but their viewpoint doesn't reflect the majority of Afghans. The majority of Afghans looked to us for help and, while many of them have been disappointed, many are also fearful of when we leave and wish we wouldn't as we are the only thing standing between them and yet another "conqueror" (Taliban).

As to the "two years" thing, absolutely right. The problem is, the Afghans are a flexible people, and while bringing them forward two thousand years in a short amount of time is difficult, they were ON that road and making good progress until the Russians invaded and killed the Shah. Then they had to go back to fighting yet another conqueror, which they did and, as usual, pushed them out. Then came the repressive rule of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, which took them BACK hundreds of years. Then we came along and did do a BIT toward bringing them forward again, but as mentioned, nation building hasn't been our focus, so we've made a mess of it (again), and will leave them to go backward again under the Taliban. In that respect,

Quote:
With the forced conscriptions that happen and the way villages swing from side to side in order to survive, the situation is much, much more complicated than that.

is absolutely accurate.

IF we had stayed initially and ignored Iraq, which actually had nothing to do with it and was a made-up war, we might have brought them forward yet again, I have no doubt. Mostly, the Afghans just want to be left alone to live their lives, but they've virtually never had the chance, since they've been invaded so often. MANY would like to move forward, but at a more reasonable pace...but that's not going to happen either, unfortunately.

Quote:
we are not purposely targeting civilians.

No, we're not, but we don't care how many of them die along the way, either.

Quote:
In the end using other countries like this can save us time, money and our own people. It helps in keeping those that want to do us harm too weak to really harm us.

I'm really surprised to see Nick arguing the side he is. I disagree on this point in particular; as someone said, Al Qaeda's intent was never to "win" over us militarily, it was to do exactly what it has done: instill fear, engage us in so many places we spread ourselves very thin and have to spend a ton of money keeping up. They HAVE already won that "war" and have diminished us without ever declaring war or winning against us militarily. They've been smart from the first and have had an excellent insight into how to defeat us.

We cannot know the actual figures on civilia