6200 civilians Casualities this month in Afghanistan?

[bloodyminded]

Simply. Civilians are not the targets - unless they shoot at you.

If they're intentionally killed--as they are in drone attacks, for one example--then the notion of "targeted" edges into the specious form of argument.

Just as it was in EVERY war to date.

Yeah, this sounds really sincere. Your compassion is overwhelming.

At least you care about important victims: Americans. So you're not a sociopath.

Try not to be him. Avoid Islam.

Avoid defending hawkish Western wars of aggression.

Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

Yeah, this sounds really sincere. Your compassion is overwhelming.

So is your ducking the reality.

At least you care about important victims: Americans. So you're not a sociopath.

Your antiAmericanism is so hopeless you completely forgot all other NATO nations. And even the 40 nations in Iraq.

Avoid defending hawkish Western wars of aggression.

Defend only Islamic terrorists

[jbg]

We owe it to the civilians, who are completely innocent and had nothing to do with 9-11, to place as much worth/value on their lives as we did the innocent civilians killed on 9-11. If we don't, we are no better than they are. And I believe we are. Therefore, we owe it to them to fulfill our promise, and thankfully there are military leaders/troops who agree.

I generally agree with you. The one caveat I have is that the innoent civilians here have done little to demand that the extremists cease and desist. Even in liberal-hating Arizona, all stops were pulled out to end Jarod Loughney's madness yesterday. The Taliban's depredations continue unabated and largely unopposed among Afghan and Pakistani civilians.

They have a role as well.

[Saipan]

Afghanistan, for example, STILL have death penalty for mere conversion to non-Islamic religion.

[wyly]

Oh sure, and in Canada too of course.

yupCanada as well, but to a much smaller degree...

The double standard is real, but fortunately (since I dislike psychopaths) it is normally unconscious. It is taken for granted that "we" (Canada, the US, and whomever our political leaders deem an ally, temporary or otherwise) are benign. That our intentions are good. That we are "protecting freedom" or some such thing. The more "critical" voices might complain that we keep blundering, we keep making mistakes, didn't think this or that policy through, and so on; but our fundamental intentions, which are altruistic and bespeak the best part of humanity, are assumed to be quite excellent.

unconscious? sometimes...ignorance is the more likely cause...good intent is excusable for past errors in decades gone by but in today's world it's inexcusable...

Apparently, the US and its Western allies got rich and powerful not through force and coercion, like all other nations in history without exception, but rather as a reward for our basic goodness. And who rewarded us? Well....some force, undefined, at least by the secularist hawks and triumphalists. (The religious faithful are far more precise about this matter.)

as my military friend told, "wars never start out being about freedom and democracy, that's the excuse used to justify it"...one of my favourite quotes

And to suggest otherwise--that humanitarian noblity is not the primary cause of our behaviour--is to be deemed a "radical" or some such thing; this is the precise intellectual equivalent of the notion of infidels who dispute the self-evident truths offered in Divine books.

"you're either with us or you're with the terrorists"...patriotism gets in the way of the truth...

Well, it's indoctrination. But of course, and understandably, when you point out indoctrination, people aren't going to take that very well. I don't blame them; I wouldn't appreciate it myself. But unfortunately, this remains, broadly, my view on the matter.

really? after the initial slap that wakes me up I appreciate being told the truth or at least the other sides point of view...

What I find more distressing than the jaw-dropping ignorance of the "west is benign" school of thought (if we can call it "thought") is those who finally admit everything, every criticism, as more or less accurate...but then support and defend it anyway. There's more than a few of these people, who are genuine moral relativists.

but at least you know where they stand and everyone can see what they are...

[Guest American Woman]

yupCanada as well, but to a much smaller degree...

Speaking of moral relativists......

[bloodyminded]

Afghanistan, for example, STILL have death penalty for mere conversion to non-Islamic religion.

That's because we are allied with people identical to the Taliban.

And have ignored the secular, humanist people like Malalai Joya--who live under threats of death from our Afghan allies.

I guess we weren't too worried about "spreading freedom" after all.

[bloodyminded]

So is your ducking the reality.

That civilians are terrorists, and that their lives are unimportant? Not my reality.

Your antiAmericanism is so hopeless you completely forgot all other NATO nations. And even the 40 nations in Iraq.

I have no "anti-Americanism." You use that as code for "not conservative."

And obviously you care nothing for Iraqi victims; why pretend?

Defend only Islamic terrorists

Like our Afghan allies?

[Guest TrueMetis]

I generally agree with you. The one caveat I have is that the innoent civilians here have done little to demand that the extremists cease and desist. Even in liberal-hating Arizona, all stops were pulled out to end Jarod Loughney's madness yesterday. The Taliban's depredations continue unabated and largely unopposed among Afghan and Pakistani civilians.

They have a role as well.

Oh this is bullshit and you know it. Time and time again examples have been posted of Muslims who do oppose these groups but you just continue to ignore them.

[jbg]

Oh this is bullshit and you know it. Time and time again examples have been posted of Muslims who do oppose these groups but you just continue to ignore them.

Yes. But they're either apostate Muslims or their voices are very quiet. Most often they decry "terrorism in all its forms" and sheepishly admit that includes Zionism.

[dre]

Oh this is bullshit and you know it. Time and time again examples have been posted of Muslims who do oppose these groups but you just continue to ignore them.

Its good propoganda though! The GWOT involves such an astronomical ammount of muslim casualties, that it would be really hard to fight if you didnt somehow dehumanize muslims in the eyes of westerners, and the "They dont speak out against it!" meme has been very important to that end.

[Saipan]

Oh this is bullshit and you know it. Time and time again examples have been posted of Muslims who do oppose these groups but you just continue to ignore them.

Should they get medal for being humans?

[bloodyminded]

Yes. But they're either apostate Muslims or their voices are very quiet. Most often they decry "terrorism in all its forms" and sheepishly admit that includes Zionism.

If you don't decry terrorism in all its forms, then you don't decry terrorism. (I would not include Zionism in there, just to be clear).

Those who oppose Islamic terrorism but defend Western terrorism do not oppose terrorism. They support terrorism. That's just a truism.

[Saipan]

Those who oppose Islamic terrorism but defend Western terrorism do not oppose terrorism. They support terrorism. That's just a truism.

Yes, most people, 'specially Moslems, get always nervous when a Westerner boards a plane. You never know what he has in his shoe or underwear

[bloodyminded]

Yes, most people, 'specially Moslems, get always nervous when a Westerner boards a plane. You never know what he has in his shoe or underwear

You should broaden your definition of "terrorism" beyond "Muslims on planes."

Yeesh.

State terrorism has been more destructive and awful than the sort posed by subnational groups of extremists.

Edited January 10, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

You should broaden your definition of "terrorism" beyond "Muslims on planes."

Because you can't come up with anything?

[bloodyminded]

Because you can't come up with anything?

I did. "State terrorism" was the term I used,

It was in my last post, the one from which you quoted me.

[Saipan]

I did. "State terrorism" was the term I used,

You must be thinking of China in Tibet.

[bloodyminded]

You must be thinking of China in Tibet.

China has engaged in state terrorism, certainly.

You mentions China sometimes as if you think I would defened it. I'm not sure why. I never once have.

[Saipan]

You mentions China sometimes as if you think I would defened it. I'm not sure why. I never once have.

Because it's the only known state terrorism at the present.

North Koreans at least keep it to themself.

And Cuba has no longer the means to infiltrate to South American and Africa, since the colapse of Soviet Union. Piggy bank is empty.

[bloodyminded]

Because it's the only known state terrorism at the present.

North Koreans at least keep it to themself.

And Cuba has no longer the means to infiltrate to South American and Africa, since the colapse of Soviet Union. Piggy bank is empty.

Cuba has never been the terrorist state that some of the Western nations have been.

As for "the only state terrorism"...well, we don't know, we'll see what we learn about current events later, in the usual way.

What we can do in these discussions--in order to talk about what is uncontroversially state terrorism--is to go back all the way to 1999. Wow, ancient history. Western support for Indonesian state terror that makes Hamas look like Gandhi.

Edited January 10, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

Cuba has never been the terrorist state that some of the Western nations have been.

Yes, they were. In Angola and South America. Where do you think Che was shot?

As for "the only state terrorism"...well, we don't know

Could be, but we do.

[bloodyminded]

Yes, they were. In Angola and South America. Where do you think Che was shot?

They never achieved the levels perpetrated by the United States, by the UK. Not even close.

Could be, but we do.

If you don't even know that Western countries, led by the U.S., were directly involved with massive state terrorism in East Timor for 25 years, with 200 000 murdered, in a matter that is public record...what in the world makes you think you know what's going on currently?

Edited January 10, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

They never achieved the levels perpetrated by the United States, by the UK. Not even close.

Let's see the "levels".

what in the world makes you think you know what's going on currently?

I'm sure you can enlighten me with facts, not opinions.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Saipan

[Guest American Woman]

We owe it to the civilians, who are completely innocent and had nothing to do with 9-11, to place as much worth/value on their lives as we did the innocent civilians killed on 9-11. If we don't, we are no better than they are. And I believe we are. Therefore, we owe it to them to fulfill our promise, and thankfully there are military leaders/troops who agree.

I generally agree with you. The one caveat I have is that the innoent civilians here have done little to demand that the extremists cease and desist. Even in liberal-hating Arizona, all stops were pulled out to end Jarod Loughney's madness yesterday. The Taliban's depredations continue unabated and largely unopposed among Afghan and Pakistani civilians.

They have a role as well.

I'm going to limit my response to Afghan civilians since they are the ones being killed in the war, and I must say, I think it would be rather difficult for them to speak out since they are being dominated by the Taliban. I'm sure they don't love what the Taliban has done to their country and to them. Furthermore, many are struggling just to exist; I'm not sure they're even aware of all that's going on. I would think that they have enough to deal with in their own lives, their own country, without worrying about what's happening to Americans/Westerners. I'm not sure what speaking out against the Taliban would result in for them personally, if it would even be safe for them to do so, but I'm sure if they were to speak out, it would be for their benefit, not ours. And understandably so.