1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

31 US special forces killed in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by RedRalph, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    How painful would it be to walk away from a region that will fall into the hands of a regime such as the Taliban, especially after all the effort put in there?

    Pretty damn painful if you care at all about Afghani civilians.
     
  2. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    I still have a bad feeling that it might have been planned. Not from the inside, mind you, but a Taliban informant or something somehow knowing where this popular "SEAL Team 6" might be. Just that they were wrong on exactly how big it was.
     
  3. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    I really don't get why it's acceptable to celebrate the death of Osama Bin Ladenin general, but not of US servicemen.

    I mean, I can see subjective differences, but we, as members of western/occidental communities, might as well stop all pretence of objectivity when one is acceptable, but the other isn't?
     
  4. Xanikk999

    Xanikk999 History junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,232
    Location:
    Fairfax county VA, USA
    The Taliban do not represent the consensus of the country if anything they are a minority rebel insurgency and not freedom fighters. If the Taliban gained power they would be conquerors.
     
  5. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    One is an advocate for the deaths of innocents, another is an advocate for the protection of innocents (risking own lives for this goal). There is just no comparison.
     
  6. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    Politics aside, it's a comparison; OBL was (and still is) considered a legitimate form of resistance in number of communities, while the US military is equally seen as a machine of death and oppression in many communities (there is some overlap).

    If we assume your premise, it's that there is an objective "good" and "evil", which revolves around a Occidental-centric view of the world, and that other, non Europeanised/Americanised opinions are inherently inferior.
     
  7. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    Our objectivity comes from actions and intent. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda use civilian targeting for political goals. The US attempts to preserve civilians by being there in the first place, through sacrificing military resources (including precious lives).

    Other people's perceptions are irrelevant. Unless you start arguing that the slaughter of civilians for political and military goals is morally permissive.

    Sometimes some things are truly more "good" and more "evil", regardless of local perceptions.
     
  8. Maniacal

    Maniacal the green Napoleon

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,778
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
  9. JollyRoger

    JollyRoger Slippin' Jimmy Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2001
    Messages:
    42,965
    Location:
    Chicago Sunroofing
    Afghani civilians are going to be killed whether by us or the Taliban. I am talking about strictly our killing of them.
     
  10. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,747
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    It seems that arguing about the morality of an action based on the intentions of the actors requires that we know exactly what those intentions are. I don't think that's the case here.
     
  11. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    This is absolutely debatable, and you're trying to pass it off as "fact".

    Shock and Awe has received widespread criticism, as has the bombing of Baghdad and other regions,a s wholesale targeting of civilian populations, and the US army isn't too popular with their Coalition counterparts, as they're seen as preferring to kill civilians to accepting servicemen deaths.

    It seems to be; any militaries see it as an expedient way of operating.

    We just have the benefit of being able to sit back in our comfortable armchairs and calling people far way "evil", while clinging on to the perception that somehow we're the "good" guys in all this, when it's demonstrably false.

    In terms on intent, we can take it all the way back to governments and political ideology which is, in all cases, not black and white.
     
  12. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    There is a distinct difference in the number of civilians that are going to be killed purposefully by the Taliban and accidentally by the U.S. The only comparison is that this number is greater than 2 in both cases, allowing you to say "civilians" to both.

    But this ignores the vast difference between the two ideas and results.

    It can be pretty easy to tell the intentions when they are clearly stated, and followed through (or attempted).

    Are US troops intentionally targeting civilian populations? Or are civilian casualties accidents and collateral damage for the purposes of saving civilians?

    I think there is a distinct difference to the way the US operates in regards to civilians, and the way the Taliban and Al-Qaeda do.

    I think you're getting the idea that simply because sometimes the results are the same - "Afghani civilians die" - that the two sides are the same. But the intent and magnitude matter, which is why this viewpoint is wrong.
     
  13. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,747
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    And it would be pretty silly to assume that they are clear just because they are stated by the actors and seemingly acted on sometimes.
     
  14. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    You'd have to go in-depth into how true these attempts really are.

    I do warn, that there may be shades of gray. A white might be flecked by some gray, providing examples of blackness... but it could still be mainly white.
     
  15. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    ^The term "collateral damage" is a euphemism, beautifully crafted by the US military, to essentially refer to the wholesale murder of civilians because it's expeditable.

    It's ludicrous to think that it's acceptable to kill people because "they're in the way" etc.

    By legal standards, that would be anywhere from murder, to gross negligence manslaughter.

    Or let me put it another way; would you consider 9/11 as a legitimate attack, because the Twin Towers housed certain facilities involved with the American defence organisations, and economy?

    Was the bombing of the Beirut Barracks acceptable?


    You're arguing two completely different things here; intent and magnitude.

    Once intent is established, magnitude is essentially irrelevant.
     
  16. Defiant47

    Defiant47 Peace Sentinel

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,602
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm just going to have to disagree with this statement, and at the moment, lack the resources (and motivation to obtain those resources) to attempt to convince you otherwise.

    You seem to think that the US military finds the wholesale murder of civilians acceptable because it expedites things. The magnitude of this claim, and my preemptive understanding of examples given that can be seen that way, reveal to me that there's little more to discuss other than going around in circles.

    So let's just put it like this. I disagree with your assessment.
     
  17. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,747
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    We don't really have the capacity to go "in-depth" in any significant sense.

    Truth is we don't know why exactly they do what they do. The reasons could truly be evil or they could be mundane. And whose intentions are we considering anyway? Those of organisations? Those of the individuals within the organisations? Can organisations have intentions? Can we meaningfully discuss the intentions of individuals while considering them as a collective?

    On this scale especially, it's not terribly useful to try and establish moral superiority based on intentions that we cannot really know.
     
  18. Maniacal

    Maniacal the green Napoleon

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,778
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    Here's a recent example of that:
    http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/08/20118662233672861.html

    RIP innocent civilians.
     
  19. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
  20. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    Especially when they are the victims of standoff weapons, because the coalition forces think their own lives are far more sacred than the local civilians.

    Here are the documented civilian casualties by coalition forces for just last month:

    Of course, these are just the admitted killings which can be directly attributable to coalition forces.

    And here's an interesting example why it is likely not even close to being accurate:

     

Share This Page