*DAMN R6 Forum

More war - some debate and some humor:

1)  The funniest thing ever.  State of the Union 2003 (http://www.campchaos.com/othershows/video/02.html)

---

2)  Here's a website linked from www.iraqbodycount.net (http://www.iraqbodycount.net) that lists all the civilian casualties of the Afganistan campaign.  Assuming hypothetically that these 3000 were all directly killed due to US troops, how do those compare to the 3000 lost in the WTC bombings?  Note also that the Iraq toll is nearing 1000 innocents.

Afghanistan civilian body count (http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emwherold/)

No one seems to have made a big deal over Afghanistan lately. . .but it seems like even that conflict now was entirely wrong.  Where does the justification of going after the Taliban come from if we killed as many of their people as their terrorists did of ours?  Why is there more outrage for American lives than for Afghani?  Why aren't other nations holding candelight vigils and the like.  And finally, why has the US now left the country alone to flounder in its ruined state?

Hehe, it's funny because it's true.

I don't know if any of you have looked through the Energy Policy the Bush Administration is pushing, but it is just wrong.  His strategy is to seek oil as far as he can rather than enforcing energy efficiency and more reliance on natural gas and renewables, something that is sustainable unlike his policy.  The Natural Resource Defence Council has a policy reply to the Bush one that makes more sense (albeit isn't that much more economics based, but certainly is as good as Bush's).  I'll be writing my own policy as an assignment for my Environmental Economics class if any of you care to see it when I'm done.

Oh and Bucc, I've been reading up about nuclear power in this and I've found no real evidence of this puck style that is cleaner and safer.  What I've read is that no new power plants have been built in over 25 years and none are planned and that nuclear power is very uneconomical especially if the government would remove subsudies and protection of plants from liability of accidents.  Would you care to refer me to more information on what you were talking about because I'd like to see it (would be good to know if I should include or write off nuclear electricity production).

1. There's a BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE between the innocents lost in the WTC and the innocents lost in afganistan and iraq. THE INNOCENTS IN THE WTC WERE TARGETED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any innocent deaths in Afganistan and Iraq are unintentional accidents. Intent makes a big difference loud....

2. See response one. Though I'd like to add that the WTC was an unprovoked attack. And before anyone says US foreign policy provoked the WTC attack, cram it. At NO TIME is it EVER ok to target innocents. Period.

3. Where did you get the idea that afghanistan was left to flounder? Last I checked we still had several thousand troops actively trying to help rebuild afghanistan, as well as special forces troops assigned to protect Karzai himself. Oh yeah, we sure cut them loose there didn't we... that's why Iran is so worried about us being there, riiiiight.

Regarding the non-serious topic...

"This year for the first time, we must offer every child in America...3 nuclear missiles."
"And tonight I have a message for the people of Iraq...go home and die."

Oi.  Some funny shit   ;D

I was basing it mostly off a news article I read recently suggesting that the Taliban still has control over some areas, that the provisional government has been able to do little toward rebuilding the country, and that corruption and looting are widespread.  Also, an aid worker was murdered, and much of the police forces are underpaid and are deserting.  So while US troops may still be present, they don't seem to be very effective - as our attention certainly lies elsewhere.

Regarding the WTC - I don't mean to provoke outrage - it's just a thought.  In my mind the difference in intent puts the two actions along the lines of "murder" and "manslaughter".  To me, they're both reprehensible - and the one doesn't seem like a reasonable response to the other.

Ultimately, 3000 unintentional accidents seems like a few too many to be ignored. . .If war is that costly - do it's benefits really outweigh the losses?  Along those lines - many people often quote "there are no winners in war".  This seems fairly true to me - so why do people choose to initiate conflict when they themselves are relatively secure?

Go tell that to the families of an innocent casualty with that alaric and see what they tell you. Dead civilians are dead civilians, regardless of the process that occurred to make them that way in the end you have the same thing. One has to wonder if it is worth it to kill as many or more civilians than died on 9/11 in our attempt to find the attackers. The ends don't justify the means.

Here is how we cut them loose:
There is no money in the new budget allocated towards rebuilding Afghanistan or providing humanitarian aid to Afghanistan. When Bush vowed that "he would not abandon Afghanistan", I don't think this is what most people had in mind. Afghanistan gets occupying troops but none of the benefits that usually come with being occupied by a rich and powerful country.

How can you guys say intent does not make a huge difference? The WTC attacks had one purpose: to kill and frighten as many innocent civilians as possible. In contrast, the war in Afghanistan was undertaken with the goal of finding those terrorist bastards and removing the brutally repressive regime that harbored them. Huge fucking difference. Who knows how many lives were saved or made better because of the war in Afghanistan. I can't think of anyone besides a few terrorist assholes who were happy about 9/11. In the end, if each took the same amount of innocents, it will be a cold day in hell before you can compare the consequences of the two.

If' you've ever read The Divine Comedy, hell isn't all firey, in fact there is one section that is very cold.

With that said, both 9/11 and in Afghanistan, civilian deaths are a means to an end.  The end is different but the way of getting there is oddly similar.

THE WAY OF GETTING THERE IS IN NO WAY SIMILAR AT ALL!!

9/11 - Civilian deaths caused ON PURPOSE by terrorist assholes who's main goal is to KILL as many innocents as possible in the hopes of striking fear into more innocents.

US war in Afghanistan - Civilians deaths caused ON ACCIDENT during the middle of a war (as happens in every war) by an army trying to take out a regime that harbored terrorists and repressed the vast majority of its people.

In no way, shape, or form were the civilian deaths in Afghanistan a means to any end. That would imply that the US intended to kill civilians, which only the most extremist wacko would argue. They were actually an unfortunate part of the ends caused by going to war. I would really hope you could understand something so simple Bondo.

Well Ace, it was or should have been in the calculation from the start that civilians would be killed, it doesn't really make it accidents, it doesn't make it purpose either though.

Bondo, I really have to read that, although I wonder if they write me up in the 'potentially satanist'-list if I ask for Dante in the local library ;)

those terrorist did that because they wanted to make the americans scared
and why would they do that? Because america is giving weapons to people who
kill the families of the terrorists. If my family was killed by someone I would be happy if that guy was punished

Yeah, I heard it is one of the flagged books (I think I found that out in Seven), a warning though, it is a old english epic poem.  As if poetic stories or old english stories weren't hard enough to read, he went and combined both.  Not sure if they have translated versions that make sense.  I couldn't make anything of it when I was thinking about doing my senior literary critcism project on it (ended up doing F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Last Tycoon).  I also think The Divine Comedy would be a fantastic read if I could understand it.

Ace, the means is that 3000 civilians die, it has nothing to do with intent.  9/11 perhaps was a means and an end of having the deaths, but the means itself was the same.

Again - my goal with this thread wasn't to outrage - try viewing the funny video to calm down.  Just my thought is that no matter what the intent, 3000 innocent people died in both cases.  That obviously isn't a good thing. . .

Okay, bondo, that was just dumb. Intent makes all the difference. If you can't draw a distinction between pre-meditated murder and involuntary manslaugter I pity your ignorance.

I could write up an elaborate example showing the difference, but, I think I'll just cut to the chase and say "Move to Texas, you'll be happier there than you ever will in Canada. Trust me." (no offense to Cookie or anyone else from Texas) ;D

However, because Kami brought up a vaild and well thought out point, I will provide an example showing the need to risk innocent lives in Afghanistan:

Some dude is running around in a shopping mall blasting people with his AK-47. The SWAT Team shows up and the dude takes cover behind some hostages. Now, the Police Psychologists think he's about to start blasting people again at any moment. Does the SWAT team not only have the cause, but the duty to take action against the dude with the AK-47 even if it means some hostages might be killed in the crossfire?

Alaric, the distinction is what makes the difference between ends and means.  If it is premeditated, then the end is the murders as well as the means, if it is accidental but not unexpected (as is the case here), then it is a means, but not the end...the end being the killing of those that DO deserve it.  I stand by my point, the MEANS are the same, 3000 civilians die...the ends on the other hand are completely different and are what makes one unthinkable and the other perhaps acceptable.  

Also, the deaths of these civilians isn't involunatary.  The US is well aware that deaths will occur, they just feel that they are acceptable losses in accomplishing the end.

Bondo, let's take two events:

9/11:
Means: Flying planes into buildings
End: Thousands of innocents dying

War in Iraq:
Means: Using our army to kick the shit out of the Iraqi army
End: Regime change
Side Effect: Innocents dying

Need I say more. Now quit comparing the two.

Don't forget that after this regime change, more humanitarian aid will become available to Iraq. In the long run, more civilians will be saved than lost. As always, I don't have any exact figures on hand, but how many people starve to death in Iraq each year? I would think more than 3,000. Bondo, civilian casualties are always tragic, but you can't compare accidental deaths to homicide.

I did, successfully.

Ace...
9/11
Means:Killing 3000 by flying planes into buildings
End: To kill civilians, strike fear into the hearts of America

War In Afghanistan
Means: Attacking Afghanistan knowing many civilians will be killed (3000+ as it turns out).
End: Remove bad government and capture some members responsible for planning the attack on the US but leaving the country insecure and the terrorist group still of useful strength.

3000 civilian lives being ended was the means in both instances, they just happened to be for different ends but both were essentially premeditated (the US knew it would happen if they choose to attack), even if one saw it as a good thing and the other saw it as unfortunate.

err, that doesn't make much sense.... wouldn't the means be flying airplanes into densely populated urban centers???


once again "means" means the method in which something is carried out. so in the afghanistan case, the means would be the military.....

and also, the end part is kind of facetious. no, wait.. really facetious. and also, if we left Al Quaida with considerable strength wouldn't that be justifying the course of action we're taking in the ME right now?? Since they're still dangerous??

Premeditated murder means actually thinking about how you will go about killing someone, and it implies that the attacker has INTENT to kill the people. I'm pretty sure the US didn't sit down and plan how they were going to go about "slaughtering women and children" and im damn sure the troops didn't want to kill who they didn't have to.

the type of death you are referring to is manslaughter. It is accidental, even if bound to happen. The US might have even thought that they could overtake Al Quaeda with no civilian blood shed, you don't know that they didn't plan on a swift takeover internally.

on a side note, did anyone hear about the 100 some odd kids that got freed out of an iraqi prison? so depressing.

i hate this forum  ;D

Yes, I agree the intent is important and there is a difference. The only point I made was that there is no difference to the victims, only to us. The victims are dead either way.

Tasty, that's not entirely true, see it like this, how would you rather get killed, randomly being shot by a maniac because of your hairstyle, or by pushing your neighbour out of the way of a car and getting killed while at it?

Cookie, just one thing, how would that justify what the US is doing in Iraq? They didn't go there to fight the Al Qaeda organisation.

Alaric, how can you call it 'involuntary manslaughter'? I mean, involuntary, wtf?
Don't call it an accident, it's not an accident, it's not on purpose but it's not an accident either, I don't know what to call it.

     Call it "unintentional". Civilian deaths are a known risk, and while the attacking forces try to minimize the actual deaths, they are still going to happen. It's not as though the American forces are waking up in the morning and saying to themselves, "Let's see how many noncombatants we can kill today!" Killing civilians is not the goal of the fighting, civilians are not intentionally being killed.

Bondo, your attempt to even link the deaths of civilians at the WTC and the accidental deaths of civlians in conflicts (in this case you mention Afghanistan) is misguided and out of line.

The only thing they have in common is that they were civilians and that they died, because the intent of the killing parties (WTC being AL-Qaeda and Afghanistan being Allied forces) is entirely different.

Save your breath for another argument, because there is no way you can save this one.

I guess the point I was trying to make in this thread was this:

There are two perspectives, mutually exclusive.  If you believe the one, the other is absolutely wrong and immoral.  I'm not sure why I'm able to see both sides, maybe I'm just weird.  Enough means and end - here's exactly what happened from each view:

1.  You are a terrorist.  You believe the US has wronged you and your people.  You kill 3000 innocent Americans because that is the only way you can think to hurt the US.

2.  You are an American.  The terrorists killed 3000 of your countrymen.  You find this terrible, and want to retaliate.  You destroy the government supporting the terrorists, but 3000 innocents unintentionally die.

End result from either perspective:

6000 completely innocent people are dead.  The Taliban falls.  Some Afghanis feel liberated, others not.  The terrorists feel further oppressed.  Americans feel vindicated.

Now, my question is of morality.  An eye for an eye has been exchanged, with the exception that the terrorists have been virtually destroyed, whereas America goes on about its business while continuing to receive sympathy.  Doesn't it seem like, given the current state of the two countries, America may have lost the higher moral ground from its actions?

Intentional or not, you have to accept that the US has devasted Afghanistan just as much if not more than the terrorists devasted the US.

Christ Sin, you are so freaking dull.  I've never said the acts were identical in morality.  But for you to act like the US didn't know there would be civilian casualties and that they were simply "accidents" is ignorant.  I've said it clearly that I don't think they want the deaths to happen, but you bet their ass they knew it was going to happen.  The US essentially thought the loss of 3000 civilians was acceptable in getting rid of the Taliban.

No matter what you say, I'm not linking the deaths on 9/11 to those in Afghanistan, because I don't need to, they are linked in that they are both civilian deaths.

The thing you have to think about, Al Queda thought the loss of 3000 civilians was acceptable in hurting the US and getting revenge for the perseved wrongs.  The US though the loss of 3000 civilians was acceptable in getting revenge for 9/11 and removing the Taliban and hurting Al Queda's capabilities.

Just like American's don't think the first instance was acceptable, many Afghanis and others wouldn't think the latter instance was acceptable either.  It isn't black and white like you are trying to make it as a case of good and evil.  No doubt the Al Queda one is evil, but the US caused casualties are hardly good.

Thank you Loth, that's exactly it. :)

Bondo, once again, the difference was Al Qaeda was INTENTIONALLY targetting civilians. In Afghanistan, we weren't going around bombing cities and villages. We were taking out military targets, and unfortunately, some mistakes were made. Of course we knew there would be some civilian casualties, but those casualties were minimal compared to many other wars we've been involved in, and many other wars we haven't been involved in. Let's take WW2, for example. The U.S. and the U.K. purposely targeted civilians in an attempt to scare the Germans and Japanese into surrendering. I'm not going to bother mentioning what Germany did, or Japan, but I think we all know that information already. Anyways, when the U.K. fire-bombed Dresden(I think that's the name of the city), almost the same amount of noncombatants died as when we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. In Afghanistan, we did nothing of the sort. Now, I think the point Bondo (or someone else) was trying to make is that in the eyes of the victim's families, it doesn't matter if it was an accidental death or not.