Serious & Non-serious

[kami]

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.

[Mr. Lothario]

     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.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

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.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

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.

[kami]

Thank you Loth, that's exactly it.

[Mr.Mellow]

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.