Afghan Suicide bomber kills 10 children...'We gotta get outta this place.

Originally posted by unphased

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I agree with Unphased.

This is a classic example of where when the Afghans commit atrocities we react with outrage and fury, but when Americans do the same the excuses roll out and it becomes just an inconsequential footnote.

It doesn't matter who's doing the killing or dying. It's all wrong. I personally find it quite crass that you tried to somehow find moral distinction between suicide bombers and U.S. drone strikes. As if death by drone strike is infinitely more preferable and honorable.

Although I can appreciate that you don't like hearing such opposing view points, it's not realistic to just put one or two sentences in your OP and expect to just silence the debate.

Also I don't believe it's right to just label people as "evil" whether it be the suicide bombers or the U.S. airmen piloting drones.

Also I hope you realise that I'm not having a go at you personally, as I can see you've spent time making this thread. But it's important to have a discussion about this.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?” – Gandhi

Interesting. So the deaths of civilians in Nazi concentration camps were the moral and legal equivalent of the deaths of civilians in the bombing of Berlin?

What was the END RESULT...? Dead innocent people....

So you believe then, that the two are morally equal then...that accidentally killing people to stop the holocaust was just as immoral as the holocuast itself. So you think it was immoral to stop the Nazis then?

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by unphased

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by unphased

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Skjord

 

I haven't replied to a few on this thread because I'm not getting into the gutter on this topic. I don't condone, by ANY MEANS, the mistreatment or killing of civilians by US forces. I never have. I never will and I've been vocal about speaking out against it when it's shown to have happened (not rumored) in the past.

People seem to assume that because I think the terrorist scumbags in Afghanistan are pretty much a step below child molesters, that I somehow SUPPORT atrocious behavior by OUR side. That's absurd and flat wrong. I've never said or suggested anything of the sort. In fact, I've taken quite the opposite position when proof has been present for misconduct by US forces. We have a nice place in Kansas for them to live out their days with others of their kind, too.

That being said....I also don't see the need to give big hugs or support to ruthless killers among the Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorists just because we do have criminals in uniform on our side. The *HUGE* difference is....their side calls it fair and reasonable tactics to fight with and they have for over 20 years. LONG before we got there. Clear back into the days of the Soviet Occupation.

Some absolutely CANNOT see the difference between U.S. Forces and others...or even acknowledge that there MAY be any difference at all. Well, for those who may have missed this little detail..... I come from a family with strong military tradition. United States Military tradition. My Brother in Law is a former Marine with time in both wars over there and one of my 1st cousins still serves over there, somewhere, when he's called back to deploy.

So, I really have no tolerance..of any kind..for that moral relativism between an army that prosecutes murders and one that celebrates them as heros. There is no comparison to the two sides, even if the monsters that exist on both (and to some degree in ALL armies, in ALL wars) do horrible things. Fine...... PROSECUTE THEM. Don't even start painting the WHOLE MILITARY with the brush of the madmen the war produces at times. Especially not when the Vets I personally know would shoot them, PERSONALLY, if they witnessed some of this happening. US Soldier or not.

Ok...sooo maybe you're having a hard time understanding this.. Drone bombs, and the "collateral damage" attatched to them, constitute war crimes, in the methods the US uses them. The US doesn't prosecute murderers, they prosecute the big ones that they can't cover up.

Guess what: in a logical world, if I'm going up against an enemy, and I throw a grenade, and kill the guy, AND his family, I SHOULD be brought up on murder charges...

There is NO moral high ground here. In the end, CHILDREN DIE, WOMEN DIE, INNOCENTS DIE, so no, there is no difference between the US military and taliban fighters..

Let's go back in time to where a group of REAL MEN met off in the distance and fought the war.. Now the war is taken to civilians and you have the damn nerve to claim that ANYONE has a moral high ground?!?!?

The US and UK forces have just crossed the Rhine river and a Nazi machinegun nest is set up in a hospital. US and UK forces fire back at the nest and civilians die as a result vs a Nazi death squad executing civilians as the US and UK forces roll up on their camp. There is indeed a difference both morally and legally. Methinks you do not understand what constitutes a war crime.

Why are you talking about Nazi's when I'm talking about drone bombing neighborhoods...?

Because, I'm trying to point out the underlying principles of the rules of war and what constitutes a true war crime vs an imagined one. Most of the people I hear talking about US "war crimes" really don't know what constitutes true war crimes.

Sometimes collateral damage happens. The era of the bad guys standing across open fields from teh good guys are long over and have been gone since before WWI. As long as the bad guys hide behind civilians and use them as shields, there will be, regrettebly, civilian casualties. The ROE of our military in both theaters is very, very strict and we do everything we can to avoid civilian casualties.

That logic would require a target to know they're being targeted by a drone...while they're at a wedding...and purposely staying at the wedding, thus "hiding". Our military doesn't do much to avoid casualties at all, especially since the uptick in remote controlled warfare....

reply to post by Kram09

This is a classic example of where when the Afghans commit atrocities we react with outrage and fury, but when Americans do the same the excuses roll out and it becomes just an inconsequential footnote.

It doesn't matter who's doing the killing or dying. It's all wrong. I personally find it quite crass that you tried to somehow find moral distinction between suicide bombers and U.S. drone strikes. As if death by drone strike is infinitely more preferable and honorable.

I keyed on those lines to be direct about it. Nothing personal though...Just an overall weariness in feeling under siege as an American here some days. You'd think the United States was the original inventor and bringer of evil to the Planet Earth at times, to hear people portray events that happen.

I do see your side and have no disagreement with ALL of this being wrong ..and you may have noticed..I have come to really hate the drone program precisely because it does make a near video game of killing people. Like the Helicopter gunship footage I posted yesterday on the Manning thread, which he had first leaked to the world. That almost made me vomit in my trash can, it hit me SO hard for how WRONG it was. I'd seen few minute shots...but what I posted there was 18 minutes giving the full 'back and forth' well before and well after the shooting of the Reuters journalist team with everyone around them.

I'm an equal opportunity guy when it comes to calling out pure evil. That chopper crew was absolutely NO better than this Jihadi in Kabul. Worse, in some ways, for the education and training they had over him by making a logical guess on things. They DID know better where pure and literal ignorance can sometimes be a part of what goes into suicide bombers. No excuses...but explanations to understand are important, right?

reply to post by unphased


That is incorrect. Our ROE is extrememly strict...to the point that there has been some criticism and accusations in the field that Americans have died because our ROE is so strict in the theater.

I understand that some people have the emotional belief that the US military is nothing but a slavering and vicious mob of baby killers and war criminals and nothing factual or logical will sway them from this belief, but the facts of the matter and the history of the matter is directly the opposite. We treat our enemy and the indiginous population with more care and concern for the laws of war better than any other nation with the exception of most of our NATO allies who have similar concern and ROE.

Our forces in the ME have very strict ROE to avoid civilian casualties. The real question is not why the US troops are evil baby-killers (because they are not) but why this administration exempts itself from the same ROE that the military on the ground has to obey.

my question is, was it someone from the Assad regime or was it someone from the other side? From my long experience, it is a real hard one to fathom out. ME people can look you straight in the eye and lie to you. (yeah, I know, so can other people but this type of behaviour, ie deceet, is just part of their culure (imo), may I even suggest their DNA?) so imo, a long hard look has to be taken into which camp has been behind it. Lies, deception these are the tools of this part of the world. Goes for the sarin rubbish that has recently happened as well. Who used it? me thinks both maybe?

reply to post by NavyDoc

Simply because Christianity has moved on from the middle ages whilst Islam seems to be stuck in the middle ages?

Not at all. One of the points I was trying to make is that Islam is a religion 620ish years younger than Christianity. It seems that very few people take into consideration this fact. The ability of Western Europe to develop military dominance combined with the relative religious peace brought about by that dominance is rarely considered. This began almost 400 years ago.

Muslim lands have had to deal with European and Christian colonialism until the middle of the 20th century. My point here is that Islam has not had the peace, prosperity, and dominance to nurture its cultural and religious beliefs. Take note that for centuries before the Age of Exploration, Europe was the backwater of civilized nations in Eurasia. It was not to be compared in the wealth and culture of the great civilizations of Asia.

The previously unknown stability brought on by the Mongol Empire allowed the ideas of gunpowder and the compass to be transmitted along the trade routes to the west. This led to the founding of global waterways which paved the way for Western European dominance.

Basically, the majority of Christian nations have been in an age of religious peace for almost 400 years(barring a few incidents here and there). Muslims lands have not had that opportunity in Pre-Modern and Modern times. This reason, as much as any other, has contributed to the extremism we encounter today.

This issue is not simple in any respect. One of the major problems in dealing with this is the belief that it is a simple problem.

reply to post by NavyDoc

If you say that it does not matter the circumstances and all civilian casualties are immoral war crimes

I didn't say that.

Once you expand your thought processes, and think outside the simple contrived situation, you become to realize that the absolutist stance does not hold logical merit.

Once you stop putting words in other people's mouths...We're not talking about Nazi Germany or the Second World War (but it seems not a topic goes by before someone somehow brings it up) and I think you're deliberately obfuscating the issue.

This conflict in Afghanistan isn't even analogous in the slightest with events of the Second World War for which the circumstances and rationale were completely different.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

but explanations to understand are important, right?

Yes, and apologies if I came across as flippant and sarcastic in my last response to you.

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

If you say that it does not matter the circumstances and all civilian casualties are immoral war crimes

I didn't say that.

Once you expand your thought processes, and think outside the simple contrived situation, you become to realize that the absolutist stance does not hold logical merit.

Once you stop putting words in other people's mouths...We're not talking about Nazi Germany or the Second World War (but it seems not a topic goes by before someone somehow brings it up) and I think you're deliberately obfuscating the issue.

This conflict in Afghanistan isn't even analogous in the slightest with events of the Second World War for which the circumstances and rationale were completely different.

It is analogous because the rules of war have not changed. If you do not understand the history of war or the laws that pertain to warfare, you cannot with any reason, determine what is a war crime or not.

You most definately on the second page made a moral equivalency between the actions of the US and the actions of terrorists because, according to Ghandi, dead people are dead people. This is not true. There is both a legal and moral difference vis a vis civilian casualties due to the actions of the warring parties and I brought up WWII as a prime example. Don't get upset if you cannot see the whole picture and cannot understand it when presented.


We had a whole multinational trial (look up Nuremburg Trials) that discussed among other things, these very topics. History is to be learned form, not ignored.

reply to post by NavyDoc

We had a whole multinational trial (look up Nuremburg Trials) that discussed among other things, these very topics. History is to be learned form, not ignored.

Yes, after the Second World War. And such rules and judgments that were made have since been conveniently ignored by the U.S.

This however is irrelevant and we're getting off topic.

More fool you if you believe I am ignorant of history...but then you don't know me so....

Originally posted by Kram09
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

We had a whole multinational trial (look up Nuremburg Trials) that discussed among other things, these very topics. History is to be learned form, not ignored.

Yes, after the Second World War. And such rules and judgments that were made have since been conveniently ignored by the U.S.

This however is irrelevant and we're getting off topic.

More fool you if you believe I am ignorant of history...but then you don't know me so....

I've yet to see evidence to the contrary.

The Nuremburg Trials were based on the preceeding rules of war that were written up after WWI and before that were several conventions after the various wars in the late 19th century. The laws of warfare have a very long history...a history that apparently you do not know.

Either you do not know the rules of war and thus mistakingly think we have been ignoring them or you don't know what was done and jsut blindly assume we were ignoring them or you are intentionally spreading falsehoods.