Actually, Aldebaran and Winston, paradise is sitting on the side of Havasu Falls in Havasupai Canyon. Actually, Navajo Falls is a bit better since the flood and it’s only a short distance a way. But, yeah, Havasupaid Canyon. Good times.
Just FYI.
So apologising for it makes it ok?
Run that by me again, Did you read the bit where they are not even sure if they got the man they were after?
And if this is about preventing further deaths that this man would have caused why didn’t they bomb Washington to try to take out the sniper when that madman was running around taking potshots at people?
Bombs are not a great way to try to kill a single person unless you count foreign lives as worthless.
I guess this means that the ATF and FBI were justified in Waco and Ruby Ridge. It regrettable, but unavoidable that innocent people sometimes die in the zealous pursuit of justice.
Is this not the crux of the argument?
The fact that the US Army is prepared to squander the lives of foreign innocents in order to reduce the risk to men and women who joined up understanding that their job may involve combat may win votes at home but can certainly not be deemed heroic or even civilised.
Children play - that’s what they do. If you are the one throwing lethal explosives around, surely the burden of responsibility is on you to ensure an absence of children by, I don’t know, looking at the target with your own very eyes.
The point here is that the 15 children was not some single horrific accident: it was two seperate raids accounting for 9 and 6 respectively, in addition to hundreds of civilian adults in numerous similar raids.
I stand by my assertion that a choice was available NOT to bomb these targets, and that doing so without adequate observation was criminally negligent to the extent that it was no less reprehensible as targetting them deliberately in full knowledge. I further assert that state-sanctioned lethal actions must be held to a higher level of responsibility than those of criminal civilian enemies.
Dark Sarcasm Mode On:
The children deserved to die… after all if they didn’t rebel against the Taliban they were obviously supporting them ? Those children should know better than supporting terrorists and helping to hide munitions and weapons.
If your either with the USA or against them… which clearly puts the children against the USA.
Dark Sarcasm Off…
It shows casual disregard for lives of poor people on the other side of the world mostly… don’t think they could have thought about civilians in the area. (reminds me of that bombed wedding right at the beggining of the war in Afghanistan). To avenge 2700 dead in NYC its ok to kill way more in other parts of the world.
Ah, the Ariel Sharon school of terrorism control. Wonderful!
No. But we’re not talking about My Lai or Dresden here or something.
Yes. And?
Because they didn’t know where he was? Like I said, this wasn’t an indiscriminate bombing. There was a compound where the man, supposedly, was hiding amongst various weapons. That compound, and only that compound, was bombed. The surrounding houses were not damaged.
As you can clearly see, this is completely different from just bombing an entire city to kill one guy because they don’t know where he is. Please actually understand what you are talking about before you start talking next time.
I absolutely agree. As I said before, they should be using ground forces.
And? How do you know they didn’t? The Washington Post article states that a small team had scouted the location beforehand. As you may be aware, children are not always easy to spot.
You can make that assertion, but it’s idiotic, and I suspect driven by ideological blinders. Negligence is never as reprehensible as deliberate action.
I suppose one could argue that by the time a task force was assembled and on it’s way, the target might have slipped away somewhere.
One could also argue that maybe this terrorist was so dangerous that it is better to risk killing a few civilians now than to allow him to intentionally kill a hundred later.
Still, the idea of an A-10 screaming out of the sky to take out one dude on the ground does seem a little overkill.
Or it could refer to the wstablished definition of the word meaning “secondary” or “unintended”. It’s still better than our enemies term for civilians killed in military actions - “Infidels”
I think that there is very little question that such incidents are unintentional and regrettable.
Those poor kids have been in most newspapers that I’ve seen in the past few days. The NY Times and Daily News had pictures of their graves on the front pages. Mistakes like this make everybody feel terrible.
Which is all the more reason the parents shouldn’t have let a terrorist stay in an encampment in the middle of their town. Burn the place down, at least.
Neurotik, then we agree that the choice to bomb the target should not have been made if children were observable immediately prior to the strike? Yes?
We beg to differ. If the result is the same, and both the deliberate and negligent actions were just as easily avoided, then I cannot agree with you no matter what adjectives you bring to bear.
I repeat, these were two different strikes. “Tragic accidents” sounds an evermore hollow and inaccurate description of these deaths.
Who? What? Are you blaming Israel for this incident, too? Why are you dragging Israel into this discussion at all?
:mad: 
Dani
I’m not blaming Israel for squat. I’m not “dragging Israel into this discussion” either, except for the fact that firing missiles into civilian areas to kill individual terrorists is a tactic that appears (in my observation) to have been pioneered under Sharon.
Don’t conflate your country with its leader’s anti-terrorist tactics.
Yes. Moreover, we also agree that the strikes were the wrong way to go about this and that ground forces should have been used to decrease the likelihood of this sort of thing happening.
Oh come on. If I’m playing around with a loaded weapon and it accidentally goes off and kills someone, are you seriously asserting that it is the same as deliberately committing a premeditated murder? That’s just silly. Both are wrong, but one is much worse than the other. It’s why there are different degrees of homicide in the legal system (at least in the US).
I’m aware. And I have no doubt that both were accidents. And they are extremely tragic. But they are in no way on par with deliberately plotting to murder those children by bombing a day care or something.
The policy must be reviewed and discontinued. I can think of almost no benefits as opposed to huge costs if this policy is to continue.
I would suggest that in this instance, the simile is that you are playing with the trigger, knowing full well that it is hair-sensitive, that the safety catch is off, and you would see that the gun was pointing directly at somebody’s head if you only opened your eyes. Yes, I would say that such an act is so utterly negligent that it is essentially murder.
In all other respects I think we are in agreement here.
. … Or, perhaps, you were aiming a gun at killer who has recently murdered your family and is threatening to murder your friends, and it goes off and kills a kid in the room. Still not right, but you can’t just leave the reasons for the strikes out of the equation.
Er, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”? Maybe one reason why they might have let him stay there?
Or maybe he was, like, their relative or something? Son, brother, husband?
…father?
So it’s their own fault if some of their kids got killed because they let Uncle Bob stick around with his Freedom Fighter agenda and his boxes of hand grenades?
Is this a poll? No, I don’t call that civilised.
Of course, what it is, on the one hand, is polarising and counter-productive, on the other, an avoidable and shameful human tragedy.
You know, to wring one last bitter drop of juice out of this dried-up old cliche – if the killing of innocents becomes acceptable, then the terrorists have already won.
Not so cold as all that. Fortunately the stupid yanks have taken to drive around in all those big-assed SUV’s, polluting our lovely green planet with admirable quantities of greenhouse gasses. This is the warmest winter I can remember.
We all agree the children were not killed on purpose. So it was an accident. But who bears responsibility? I’d say a lot of people.
[ul][li]Al Quaida, for their terrorism without which there would have been no reason to start this war in the first place.[/li][li]Taliban for protecting Al Quaida. Had they cooperated in hunting down what I suppose we all agree were criminal terrorists, this would never have had to take place.[/li][li]The targeted man himself. He damn well knew he was a wanted man and his presence endangered everyone around him.[/li][li]The children’s parents. Terrorist or freedom fighter, yup or yap – you can call him Santa Claus for all I care, if they knew he was a wanted man, they damn well were negligent for letting their children be anywhere near him.[/li][li]The villagers. Again if they knew he was a wanted man, they knew the risk they were taking. Don’t want to die by the sword? Don’t invite the man with sword into your village.[/li][li]The American public, that’d be you! Actually the public of all participating nations in the collation having troops in Afghanistan, that’d be me! - and you Aldebaran, if I’m not much mistaken. For allowing troops to be send to Afghanistan in the first place. If not these children, then some other children were doomed the day those soldiers arrived in Afghanistan. It is the pinnacle of criminal naivety to think you can have a war without innocent casualties. And I’ll tell you what, those children are not the last ones killed in Afghanistan either if we allow soldiers to remain there. Of course the sad fact is that children are going to get killed no matter what the hell we do. Withdraw the troops, it’s just going to be some other children that are killed – probably American.[/li][li]The commanding officers who ordered the attack. For making a bad decision. But lets at least admit, that none of us have the slightest inkling what constraints he operated under, or why he found the attack necessary in the way it was carried out. Anyway I find it a bit underhanded blaming the soldiers send to do the dirty work we ordered them to. If you find the soldiers acted wrongly, at least have the integrity to carry that responsibility yourself.[/ul]I find a man can be killed in three ways; premeditated murder, accidental killing, or as a result of inaction from those that could have saved him. Personally I always found the third the most reprehensible – if for no other reason than the responsible for inaction invariable try to hide their inaction behind a moral facade. The (in)actions of Aldebarans Belgium in Rwanda will serve as a text book example here.[/li]
And with the risk of sounding a bit callous, lets try to put this into perspective. More European children are killed every day in road accidents – every day. More African children are killed every day from hunger related illnesses – every day. etc. etc. Unfortunately children are killed all the time. What makes these particular children’s death so interesting is the fact that they were killed by American soldiers. And that their deaths can be used as leverage to further some political agenda targeting American interests. And I’m not even American so I don’t know why I keep getting dragged into these blame-the-yanks-discussions, defending US actions from mostly Americans. So I think I’m going to leave it here. As I said, if you feel like being reviled – hell don’t let me ruin your party.
- Rune
I did not figure that the MOVE (Philadelphia, PA) method of smoking out criminals would be used once, much less repeatedly.