Afghan occupation - Civilians killed by the dozens
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
I don't think anyone expects you to cheer death. I don't see anyone cheering.
I do expect people to calmly, without rhetoric or anger consider the entire scope of events rather than simplify every situation like this into a nice convenient: "people shouldn't die....and anyone who thinks different should be ashamed"
If you are unwilling to examine and consider the details then you're hardly using critical thought are you? In fact if emotion is your only justification....if self-righteous rhetoric is the basis of your platform….if the attempt to monopolize 'concern for human life' in an arrogant attempt to claim unquestionable righteousness....if the only significant contribution you can add is "this sucks"...if “you guys suck and I’m taking my ball and going home” is the result of being forced to succumb to the fact that you probably don’t ‘know better’ than the people in positions of responsibility regarding these situations, well then what can anyone say?
If that's the case no one can help you and you will never find yourself in a position of serious responsibility and that's probably for the best.
"Neither fire nor wind, birth nor death can erase our good deeds."
--Buddha
RE: Afghan occupation - C
Yes, a cost-benefit analysis of dead innocents to "suspected/confirmed taliban/insurgents" death tolls is pretty barbaric, I think that is the point here, a LOT of folks are enlightened to the point where this kind of thinking appears shockingly barbaric (cue the "you don't live in the real world" music for the next copy/paste with YOU ARE A DUMMY featured as thesis statement)
As has been stated already, if we don't have the resources to do it the most humane, "constructive" (which is why we're there, supposedly, to make stuff- must be in a phase closer to 2012 or something once all the indiginous folks have been killed so as to not have anywhere to "blend in") way, then we have NO place being there- if there IS a way to do things without bloodshed, the cost shouldn't be the reason why it becomes the road not taken, and the blood of who knows how many innocents is pretty much MY hands as a taxpayer and I , for one, am disgusted/ashamed
Yes, a cost-benefit analysis of dead innocents to "suspected/confirmed taliban/insurgents" death tolls is pretty barbaric, I think that is the point here, a LOT of folks are enlightened to the point where this kind of thinking appears shockingly barbaric (cue the "you don't live in the real world" music for the next copy/paste with YOU ARE A DUMMY featured as thesis statement)
As has been stated already, if we don't have the resources to do it the most humane, "constructive" (which is why we're there, supposedly, to make stuff- must be in a phase closer to 2012 or something once all the indiginous folks have been killed so as to not have anywhere to "blend in") way, then we have NO place being there- if there IS a way to do things without bloodshed, the cost shouldn't be the reason why it becomes the road not taken, and the blood of who knows how many innocents is pretty much MY hands as a taxpayer and I , for one, am disgusted/ashamed
Where?
Nope. If you can't tell the difference between accidental killing of civilians while attacking combatants who are hiding behind them, and say, a car bomb or a suicide bomb attack where the single-minded impetus from the moment they plan the attack is to kill as many civilians as they possibly can, then you really have no right to an opinion on the subject.
.
The Politics of Evil versus Boston Legal
Truth is what your country needs most
by Richard Neville
You can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who are truly evil and aware of the fact. This group deserves an annual holiday from the horrors of hell for honesty. Most evildoers minimise the consequences of their actions and plead extenuating circumstances. The worst of the worst, often politicians, claim their aims are honourable, especially when launching invasions. In the 1970’s, during my intense and prolonged encounter with the international serial killer, Charles Sobhraj, I was struck with the way he justified his string of murders: “I never killed good people”.
It’s an excuse that curdles the blood of the listener, while masking the guilt of the speaker. A spin that’s as old as war: we good, them bad. The Sobhraj refrain has a military version: “we never mean to kill good people”. This helps the generals sleep. But in today’s era of terror, even that excuse is no longer comforting. It is all too obvious that we do kill good people on purpose, and lots of them. Leaving aside the “unavoidable deaths” resulting from stray missiles and ill trained soldiers, it is now military practice to kill any number of “good people” who happen to be in the vicinity of a suspected “bad person”. Last weekend, Israel blew up a car containing the usual “suspected Hamas militant”, in the knowledge that young children were among the passengers. It is not the first time, and is unlikely to be the last.
Assassinations that kill and maim beyond their intended target are a CIA staple, assisted by robotic planes and false information extracted by torture. The claim, “we never mean to kill good people”, no longer applies, unless you believe that babies have criminal intent. So how shall we update this mantra for the third millennium? “We only kill good people when they are in the company of a bad person and we don’t want to look them in the eye”. This position is openly argued by political leaders and the New York Times. In January, when a CIA strike on Damadola village in Pakistan missed an Al Qaeda fugitive and wiped out five women and five children, there was not only a lack of an official apology but a rebuke to the weeping relatives. You shouldn’t hang out with bad guys. While US Senator John McCain did apologize, unlike Bush, he didn’t seem to mean it, “I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again”. A New York Times editorial decided the Damadola strike had been “legitimately aimed”. So there you have it. A pinheaded Goliath unleashes Hellfire missiles at an impoverished village in a friendly nation, liquidates children, and is defended by moderates. It doesn’t make sense. If it is “legitimate” to kill innocents, then it is legitimate for bin Laden to strike the World Trade Centre. This is absurd. Therefore the argument is false.
Where do we go from here? First, acknowledge that our leadership stinks - in Washington, in London, in Canberra. There is such a convergence of threats facing the world, that it is perilous to remain constrained by political loyalties or knee jerk patriotism. Truth is what your country needs most.
The terror attack of 9/11 has triggered a chain of disasters that continues to maim, kill and oppress the innocent, day after day. Its true dimension is obscured by corporate media and ignored by necons. While the internet buzzes with dissent, breaking news and feral insights, the sleepy heartlands seem ill informed and fearful. The 1968 massacre in Mai Lai provoked an outcry, whereas the 2004 razing of Fallujah provoked Alzheimer’s. The military does what it wants and lies if it’s caught. Thanks partly to Congressman John Murtha, a former marine colonel and a Vietnam veteran, details keep emerging of the November massacre of Iraqis in the western town of Haditha. Pentagon officials have now confirmed that 24 civilians, rather than the previous estimate of 15, died in their homes in their night clothes, when a troop of Marines ran amok. Shot at point blank were seven women and three children.
Three years after hitting Iraq with “shock and awe”, it is we the reviled opponents of war who are still reeling from shock and awe. Shock at the deceits of leadership, awe at the flouting of law, amazed at the endorsement of sadism. In a single episode of Boston Legal there are more examples of people grappling with ethics, of pursuing what’s fair and right, than has been exhibited in the entire spectrum of the Bush Presidency. The James Spader character’s hunger for justice brings to mind the scores of activists I met in late 60’s early 70’s America, whose spirit and soulfulness are sadly missing from today’s Washington. Despite the horrors we’ve inflicted on innocent Muslims, the leaders of the ever shrinking Coalition of the Willing, as well as their ethically challenged cheer leaders, still seem prepared to kill, torture or maim every citizen in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to …. what? Save face. What face? Since the start of the terror wars, what we have been witnessing are a series of mini Mai Lais, thuggish statesmanship and the makings of prison states. Rarely has the sun sunk so low in the lands of the formerly free.
The 2002 invasion of Afghanistan showcased the “march-in-shooting” strategy of US house searches, which served to boost support for bin Laden. There were reports of massacres. It was alleged that 30 to 40 U.S. Special Forces assisted in the massacre of 3,000 Taliban prisoners. When Amnesty International viewed the documentary footage, much of it wisely shot in secret, it stated there was prima facie evidence of serious war crimes. In July, US planes and helicopters swooped on a wedding party southwest of Kabul, killing 54 guests and injuring over 100. “It was like an abattoir”, said a survivor. “There was blood everywhere.” One of the guests, Mohammad Anwar, whose wife was killed in the raid, told Yahoo News that after the bombing, US soldiers “stormed into the houses and tied the hands of men and women. They refused to let the people help the victims.” A week later, the local District Commissioner Abdur Rahim, paid out to relatives US$200 on behalf of each person killed and US$75 for each of the wounded. Little was made of this at the time. Much might be made of it when the orphans grow up. Charles Sobhraj was partly shaped by what he saw as a child in war torn Vietnam.
The US military has had four years to learn how to win Afghani hearts and minds. Today’s Sydney Morning Herald (23 May 06) describes a US air strike in southern Afghanistan, that “also killed and wounded civilians”. When helicopters bombed a religious school, the suspected Taliban inside ran into peoples mud brick homes, which were then bombed. “I saw 35 to 40 dead Taliban”, said Haji Ikhlaf, a blood smeared witness, “and around 50 dead or wounded civilians”. Another villager, Zurmina Bibi, cradled her wounded 8-month-old. She said about 10 people were killed in her home, including three or four children. In New York Times speak, such houses would be considered “legitimately bombed”.
Meanwhile, the coalition leaders believe they’re instruments of God. And that heaven awaits them, an illusion not shared by rank and file serial killers. As for the carnage, Bush, Blair and Howard don’t even see it. That life is worse off for the locals – never mentioned. That 82% of Iraqis hate the occupation – not an issue. That the death toll is ever soaring? No worries - they don’t do body counts. Trouble is, God probably does.
http://www.richardneville.com
Truth is what your country needs most
by Richard Neville
You can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who are truly evil and aware of the fact. This group deserves an annual holiday from the horrors of hell for honesty. Most evildoers minimise the consequences of their actions and plead extenuating circumstances. The worst of the worst, often politicians, claim their aims are honourable, especially when launching invasions. In the 1970’s, during my intense and prolonged encounter with the international serial killer, Charles Sobhraj, I was struck with the way he justified his string of murders: “I never killed good people”.
It’s an excuse that curdles the blood of the listener, while masking the guilt of the speaker. A spin that’s as old as war: we good, them bad. The Sobhraj refrain has a military version: “we never mean to kill good people”. This helps the generals sleep. But in today’s era of terror, even that excuse is no longer comforting. It is all too obvious that we do kill good people on purpose, and lots of them. Leaving aside the “unavoidable deaths” resulting from stray missiles and ill trained soldiers, it is now military practice to kill any number of “good people” who happen to be in the vicinity of a suspected “bad person”. Last weekend, Israel blew up a car containing the usual “suspected Hamas militant”, in the knowledge that young children were among the passengers. It is not the first time, and is unlikely to be the last.
Assassinations that kill and maim beyond their intended target are a CIA staple, assisted by robotic planes and false information extracted by torture. The claim, “we never mean to kill good people”, no longer applies, unless you believe that babies have criminal intent. So how shall we update this mantra for the third millennium? “We only kill good people when they are in the company of a bad person and we don’t want to look them in the eye”. This position is openly argued by political leaders and the New York Times. In January, when a CIA strike on Damadola village in Pakistan missed an Al Qaeda fugitive and wiped out five women and five children, there was not only a lack of an official apology but a rebuke to the weeping relatives. You shouldn’t hang out with bad guys. While US Senator John McCain did apologize, unlike Bush, he didn’t seem to mean it, “I can't tell you that we wouldn't do the same thing again”. A New York Times editorial decided the Damadola strike had been “legitimately aimed”. So there you have it. A pinheaded Goliath unleashes Hellfire missiles at an impoverished village in a friendly nation, liquidates children, and is defended by moderates. It doesn’t make sense. If it is “legitimate” to kill innocents, then it is legitimate for bin Laden to strike the World Trade Centre. This is absurd. Therefore the argument is false.
Where do we go from here? First, acknowledge that our leadership stinks - in Washington, in London, in Canberra. There is such a convergence of threats facing the world, that it is perilous to remain constrained by political loyalties or knee jerk patriotism. Truth is what your country needs most.
The terror attack of 9/11 has triggered a chain of disasters that continues to maim, kill and oppress the innocent, day after day. Its true dimension is obscured by corporate media and ignored by necons. While the internet buzzes with dissent, breaking news and feral insights, the sleepy heartlands seem ill informed and fearful. The 1968 massacre in Mai Lai provoked an outcry, whereas the 2004 razing of Fallujah provoked Alzheimer’s. The military does what it wants and lies if it’s caught. Thanks partly to Congressman John Murtha, a former marine colonel and a Vietnam veteran, details keep emerging of the November massacre of Iraqis in the western town of Haditha. Pentagon officials have now confirmed that 24 civilians, rather than the previous estimate of 15, died in their homes in their night clothes, when a troop of Marines ran amok. Shot at point blank were seven women and three children.
Three years after hitting Iraq with “shock and awe”, it is we the reviled opponents of war who are still reeling from shock and awe. Shock at the deceits of leadership, awe at the flouting of law, amazed at the endorsement of sadism. In a single episode of Boston Legal there are more examples of people grappling with ethics, of pursuing what’s fair and right, than has been exhibited in the entire spectrum of the Bush Presidency. The James Spader character’s hunger for justice brings to mind the scores of activists I met in late 60’s early 70’s America, whose spirit and soulfulness are sadly missing from today’s Washington. Despite the horrors we’ve inflicted on innocent Muslims, the leaders of the ever shrinking Coalition of the Willing, as well as their ethically challenged cheer leaders, still seem prepared to kill, torture or maim every citizen in Iraq and Afghanistan, in order to …. what? Save face. What face? Since the start of the terror wars, what we have been witnessing are a series of mini Mai Lais, thuggish statesmanship and the makings of prison states. Rarely has the sun sunk so low in the lands of the formerly free.
The 2002 invasion of Afghanistan showcased the “march-in-shooting” strategy of US house searches, which served to boost support for bin Laden. There were reports of massacres. It was alleged that 30 to 40 U.S. Special Forces assisted in the massacre of 3,000 Taliban prisoners. When Amnesty International viewed the documentary footage, much of it wisely shot in secret, it stated there was prima facie evidence of serious war crimes. In July, US planes and helicopters swooped on a wedding party southwest of Kabul, killing 54 guests and injuring over 100. “It was like an abattoir”, said a survivor. “There was blood everywhere.” One of the guests, Mohammad Anwar, whose wife was killed in the raid, told Yahoo News that after the bombing, US soldiers “stormed into the houses and tied the hands of men and women. They refused to let the people help the victims.” A week later, the local District Commissioner Abdur Rahim, paid out to relatives US$200 on behalf of each person killed and US$75 for each of the wounded. Little was made of this at the time. Much might be made of it when the orphans grow up. Charles Sobhraj was partly shaped by what he saw as a child in war torn Vietnam.
The US military has had four years to learn how to win Afghani hearts and minds. Today’s Sydney Morning Herald (23 May 06) describes a US air strike in southern Afghanistan, that “also killed and wounded civilians”. When helicopters bombed a religious school, the suspected Taliban inside ran into peoples mud brick homes, which were then bombed. “I saw 35 to 40 dead Taliban”, said Haji Ikhlaf, a blood smeared witness, “and around 50 dead or wounded civilians”. Another villager, Zurmina Bibi, cradled her wounded 8-month-old. She said about 10 people were killed in her home, including three or four children. In New York Times speak, such houses would be considered “legitimately bombed”.
Meanwhile, the coalition leaders believe they’re instruments of God. And that heaven awaits them, an illusion not shared by rank and file serial killers. As for the carnage, Bush, Blair and Howard don’t even see it. That life is worse off for the locals – never mentioned. That 82% of Iraqis hate the occupation – not an issue. That the death toll is ever soaring? No worries - they don’t do body counts. Trouble is, God probably does.
http://www.richardneville.com
Do you see the difference between attacks on the enemy that take civilian life and the purposeful targeting of civilians for the single-minded purpose of killing as many of them as possible?
Thinking the air strike was the right idea does not equal a justification of purposefully targeting civilians, but since you asked, no I don't actually think the airstrike was the best idea. Nor was I ever trying to defend it. I was simply pointing out the boots-on-the-ground alternative to which you immediately labelled as 'bullshit' without really even thinking about it because you're on a self-righteous holy-rolling warpath yourself to prove that no one else cares about these people like you think you do.
If you think that no combat should be engaged if there is even the slightest chance of killing civilians --- if you can't see the difference between attacks on the enemy that take civilian life and the purposeful targeting of civilians for the single-minded purpose of killing them then you are quite beyond help and far too naive and delicate to responsibly discuss this.
In fact I think it's really quite disingenuous on your part to act like you don't see the difference.
.
RE: Afghan occupation - C
Claudius, if there is a difference between coalition murder and taliban murder would you explain it to us.
Claudius, if there is a difference between coalition murder and taliban murder would you explain it to us.
lol.
You're a comlete child aren't you? Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no.
I answered your question as plain and straight forward as anyone who understands English would need. You however are obviously afraid to answer my question:
Do you see the difference between attacks on the enemy that take civilian life and the purposeful targeting of civilians for the single-minded purpose of killing as many of them as possible?
Answer yes or no.
.
RE: Afghan occupation - C
You cannot see the difference between purposely planing an attack on civilians with the sole purpose of killing them and fighting Taliban and incurring civilian casualties in the act?
If not I really can't help you.
It's mind boggling hilarious really. I can see Rwanda right now....turn history around and pretend we had a decent armed response in Rwanda.....We would have to kill civilians ...in fact civilians were the ones doing the killing. Had we been able to shoot some of them we would've been able to escort the 500000 or more killed to safe refuge. We would've probably had to shoot a few people for them to simply get the idea we were willing to shoot ---which was half the problem with the UN detachment, everyone knew they wouldn't shoot which was disastrous---and all we'd be left with is people like you screaming about the innocent civilians and "how do you tell the civilians form the mob" and how do you justify it...etc.etc....and there would be no defence from that accusation because there would not be the 500000 bodies to point at that were prevented.
.
You cannot see the difference between purposely planing an attack on civilians with the sole purpose of killing them and fighting Taliban and incurring civilian casualties in the act?
If not I really can't help you.
It's mind boggling hilarious really. I can see Rwanda right now....turn history around and pretend we had a decent armed response in Rwanda.....We would have to kill civilians ...in fact civilians were the ones doing the killing. Had we been able to shoot some of them we would've been able to escort the 500000 or more killed to safe refuge. We would've probably had to shoot a few people for them to simply get the idea we were willing to shoot ---which was half the problem with the UN detachment, everyone knew they wouldn't shoot which was disastrous---and all we'd be left with is people like you screaming about the innocent civilians and "how do you tell the civilians form the mob" and how do you justify it...etc.etc....and there would be no defence from that accusation because there would not be the 500000 bodies to point at that were prevented.
.