 |
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
[/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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hoek
|
 |
of knock-you-off-your-ass chili
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uh Clem
|
 |
Born in the US; damned if I know where I live now
Nov 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
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.
Last edited by uh Clem on 12-12-2001 at 07:17
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2001 02:03
Espacially after that crap they pulled at the Haymarket Martyrs monument back in '98. 
Definition of irony: cops defending anarchists from the working class. 
|