Well, you guys offed 8.000 Afghanis and 700.000 Iraqis since (source). And that’s just the civilians, mind you.
The eye for that eye has been plucked quite thoroughly at this point.
The website you cite is about as reliable as those who think a hundred million Amerindians died in the Columbian Exchange.
They provide their sources and methodology. What would you say is inaccurate about them ?
According to the Associate Press, Iraq Body Count, and Iraq Family Health Survey the numbers of death are at somewhere around 100,000 to 200,000. If around 600,000 Iraqis really died that’d equivalent to approximately 7.5 Million Americans dying-in otherwise bring about far more massive societal and economic reprucussions than what we’ve seen. It’d also imply that 5/6 of deaths are not reported to authorities. I can understand 1/3 or 1/2 but 5/6???
Oh. All right then. You make an excellent case. I guess if it’s *only *200.000 civilians dead, the score isn’t yet settled.
The hijackers came from lots of places. Some never met each other until just before the mission. Their airplane training was done in The US. Some of them met in Prague. Do we have to attack that city next? No it was not their base. They did not meet there and plan it.
What they had in common. They were Saudis.
The above attitude is responsible for a great many disasters throughout history.
Plus much of the killings are by anti-American terrorists not American troops.
Osama Bin Laden plus the rest of the Al-Qaeda higher-ups were in Afghanistan, so were many terrorist training camps.
Errr, what ? Have you even *read *the Wiki page…that I was sure I had cited but it turns out I didn’t :o ? Hereit is, with a more precise breakdown of the casualties.
I’m not arguing the US troops go out of their way to specifically airstrike civilians, BTW. It just sort of happens when there’s a big ol’ war going on, that’s all. And whether they died because some Intelligence dude fucked up, or some pilot dropped the bombs on the wrong coordinates, or some dumb grunt was afraid a kid had an IED hidden in his trousers or whatever doesn’t really matter, from the victim’s POV.
It should be remembered that it was the terrorists who started the war.
Damn, i’d forgotten that. Something about some big event or other? A building? Eh, it must have slipped my mind. Can’t have been that important.
And just like that, he makes it all OK.
God, I wish I had such a robust self-justification system… must be peaceful inside. Quiet.
I’m not saying killing civilians is justified-but it is a necessary evil.
This statement is self-contradictory.
It is the principle of picking the lesser evil to prevent greater evil. For an example see the atomic bombings of Japan.
But that is a justification. “It is the lesser evil” is a justification. By saying that killing civilians is a necessary evil, you justify it, by providing reason for it.
I meant it couldn’t be justified morally.
Ah, gotcha. So it’s the correct act in practical terms, but it’s still a morally wrong thing to do, is that right? I think i’d probably agree with you there.
But if you’re willing to compromise your morals in one case, no matter how extreme or special or specific it is, doesn’t it mean you didn’t have morals to begin with ? It’s kind of like people saying “I’m against the death penalty, except for {insert 'orrible crime here}” - which really means they’re *for *the death penalty.
IOW, you can’t act immorally and still pretend you have the moral high ground.
In a black and white world this statement might be true. Moral people have moral failings. All people have moral failings. Compromises are made in life and life goes on. Now some people generally operate immorally, and they cannot be called moral people.