I understand that you’re upset, and that these large headlines about civilians dying in Afghanistan are just adding fuel to your fires. However, we did not start this. If you need something to keep your knee from jerking, try this exercise. Every time you see one of these articles, take the number of casualties, and subtract it from 5,366 (to date). You have my permission not to feel guilty until your total approaches zero. Now remember, this is only civilian casualties, confirmed by international organizations such as the Red Cross. You can’t count Taliban soldiers. You can’t count refugees turned back at the border by Taliban troops. You can’t count rioters killed in other countries, protesting U.S. presence in the region. And you especially can’t count any Palestinians. Separate problem entirely. Most of all, you need to remember that the Taliban can end this at any time."
Is it me, or is this attidude severely disturbing? This person is suggesting that it is OK to kill 5,366 more innocent people until we need to feel guilty. I wasn’t even aware I needed someone to tell me when I was to feel guilt.
What do you think about this?
I’m a liberal, and I can count much, much higher than 5,366.
Heck, if I wanted to, I could probably count all the way to one billion, even, and multiply that by tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, then turn that into a percentage of total worldwide emissions per year minus the one-time percentage increase caused by the detonation of five thousand megatons’ worth of plutonium and U-235, and credit myself for helping the environment.
But that still doesn’t turn 5,366 into zero, now does it?
If it is being suggested as some tit-for-tat thing then it is wrong. We are not out to get 5,366 civilians to even the score.
However, I think the article is trying to point out that while you may feel bad for civilian deaths in Afghanistan and wonder why we are there try and remember the 5,000+ civilians killed in the US. The US is at least trying to not kill civilians on purpose but certainly allows for the fact that when you are throwing bombs around such things are likely to happen sooner or later. While we are sorry about that we feel that it is still worth throwing said bombs around in the interests of getting a person who recently masterminded the deaths of 5,000 people and who in the past has destroyed embassies and blown-up US naval vesseles and who has been linked to plans to drop almost a dozen planes into the sea among other things. When adding up the ethics of the situation I think the plus column is in our favor big time.
For those who wish to be apologists and suggest it is the fault of the US who antagonized these people into attacking just remember Pearl Harbor. The US antagonized Japan into attacking back then and Japan responded by bombing Pearl Harbor. An attack that was at least directed squarely at our military and cost fewer lives and significantly less economic damage than the WTC attacks. For that Japan and the US engaged in near Total War for four years culminating in the firebombing and A-bombing of Japanese cities killing hundreds of thousands of people.
Afghanistan should count itself as lucky it isn’t worse for them and the apologists should take note.
Whack:
I think the people of Afghanistan have been living in a war torn country for 30 years and it is a wee bit arrogant for a country like the U.S. to tell them they are “lucky”, especially when we help put the Tlaiban in place just as we will help put the Northern Alliance in place (and these guys are not far removed from the mindset of the Taliban in the first place. The majority despise Americans and a number have said they will shoot American soldiers if they encounter them). The people of Afganistan didn’t ask for this invasion, the civil war, or the invasion by the Soviet Union. I don’t think they should be considered “lucky”.
The US did not put the Taliban in place. The Northern Alliance is the remnents of who we helped when they were fighting in Russia. If we put the Taliban in place why would we not recognize them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan (which only three countries ever did and now nobody except maybe Pakistan does)?
And yes, Afghanis can consider themselves lucky. Lucky that we aren’t carpet bombing their cities and lucky that we are dropping food and water and medicine instead. They are also probably lucky that we are there to remove the Taliban for them who even they mostly didn’t like. It is also far from a done deal that the Northern Alliance will be ensconced in the Taliban’s place. Even now we are just barely working with them due to the realization that getting rid of the Taliban and replacing them with the Northern Alliance may not be much of an improvement. Of course what the final state will be remains to be seen.
Wow, rjung, I didn’t know that you spoke Pashto and Dari (the official languages of Afghanistan.) I assume that you must be fluent in those languages in order to be such an expert in Afghanistani pshychology.
Seriously, I get annoyed at those who claim to know how certain people will react to something, when it’s actually their OWN reaction they’re describing.
The Taliban originated as a splinter facton of the “Northern Alliance” when we funded them against the Soviet Invasion. This faction originated while we were activily funneling money and weapons to them and the US Governemnt was aware that they would attempt to overthrow the seated government. If we had not funded this group they simply would not be in power today.
<obi being petty>I hope I never get “lucky”, whack</obi>
No matter, the point of the OP is more about questioning why so many people feel justified in an eye for an eye, especially when the eye comes from innicent people. This blatant disregard for life leads to some ugly places, as we have seem before.
We in no way funded the Taliban or helped them to gain power. The US did aid Mujaheddin fighters in overthrowing the Russian puppet government. After that we left the country alone and they fell to fighting themsleves. The Taliban eventually overthrew the monarchy that replaced the Russians and it is the monarchy that was and still is recognized as the legitimate government of Afghanistan as a government in exile. The Taliban picking up leftover weapons from the days when we did aid rebel fighters does not count as the US abetting the Taliban in its bid for power.
Ask Germany or Japan how they feel about losing to the US in WWII. While I’m certain they weren’t thrilled with having their country bombed to pieces I think most people in thos countries are a LOT happier today with the way things went down then if they imagined a world in which their WWII repressive governments had won.
How far does innocence go? How responsible are a people for their government? Can they merely say, “Hey, its a repressive government that we have no say in so whatever they do isn’t our problem.”? Are they 100% free from guilt? Fortunately our government doesn’t buy an eye-for-an-eye way of doing things so we at least try to minimize civilian casualties by attacking only militarily relevant targets. We try to minimize the effect the war will have on innocent civilians by shipping them food and other aid. All things considered I think being attacked by the US is about the best enemy you could hope for. If the roles were reversed do you suppose the Taliban would show such restraint attacking the US?
That’s not true either. Mohammed Zahir Shah, who’s the king in exile, was overthrown in 1973, and a republic was declared, headed by President Sardar Mohamad Daud Khan. He was assassinated in 1978 by Soviet trained army officers. The two Afghan Communist factions then started killing each other, till the Soviets intervened and put Babrak Karmal in charge as a puppet ruler in 1979. He ruled until 1986, when he was replaced by Dr. Najibullah. The Mujhadden then took over Kabul and overthrew him, then had elections, and elected Prof. Burhanuddin Rabbani as President, and he’s recognized as the leader of the rightful Afghan government.
Meanwhile, while this was going on, the Pakistani government was sponsoring and training a millitia movement in Kandahar, made up of the followers of a mullah named Mohammed Omar, who started his own anti-communist and later anti mujhaddeen movement. This millitia called themselves the students…the taliban. They weren’t US backed, though. They were backed by Pakistan, and also by certain promiment Saudis, because the Taleban, even though they’re Hanafi, were influenced by the Wahabi movement.
Although this has nothing to do with the OP which more directly relates to the ability f mankind to be disgusting I feel I should address the questions posted by Capt. and Whack:
Osama bin Laden first came to internatioal power by raising funds and recruiting volunteers for the mujaheddin, the faction-ridden force that waged a guerilla war in Afghanistan against Soviet invaders. The CIA poured hundreds of millions of dollars into this effort, as did Saudi Arabia, and the Pakistani intelligence service disseminated the weapons and money supplied by the United States.
So it seems none of us were entirely right. nor entirely wrong. As Kilgore Trout said “So it goes.” Now may we get back to the subject of the original post?
Obidiah, you have to distinguish between Al Qaida and the Taliban. Yes, Osama and his Afghani Arabs have been involved in the war against the Soviets from the beginning. But they are NOT the Taliban. The Taliban didn’t even EXIST until AFTER the Soviets left. How could we have funded the Taliban when we essentially abandoned the country after the Soviets turned tail and ran?
It is true that we didn’t oppose the Taliban very enthusiastically, aside from the standard harrumphing and posturing about “human rights”. Even when the Taliban were running around blowing up statues and stoning women to death we didn’t do anything about it. That is a FAR cry from FUNDING and SUPPORTING the Taliban.
I know all these foreigners seem alike to you, but try to remember that they are not all the same.
Please provide some links for this extremely interesting thumbnail sketch. I’d like to do follow-up research on this account. I’d be grateful if you would email me the cites. Thanks for posting this.
Lemur
“all these foreigners” certianly do not seem alike to me, actually. I have spent some time in the middle east and understand fully the differences.
As the OP states (I am desperately trying to get the OP back in here somewhere) I am very concerned about how they are NOT “all alike”, either in Afgahnastan and in America. I am curious as to how a human being can write:
This person is stating that it perfectly OK for 5,366 more innocent people to die before we need to feel guilty. Is that alright by you? By anyone? Are there people out there who REALLY believe that more thousands of innocent people SHOULD die for no reason but to apease some need for blind vengence?
Has anyone here ever killed ONE SINGLE INNOCENT person? If so, how did that make you feel?
Well, I get annoyed by smug conservatives who assume the reasoning behind someone else’s argument.
For whatever it’s worth, the entire “The Americans are justifying bombing Afghani civilians by citing the WTC death count” was something I heard from CBS news radio the other morning – a high-ranking Taliban leader was quoted as using that same argument to condemn their charges that the US bombed an Afghani hospital. So if you want to level accusations of leaping to premature assumptions, go call up CBS.
Actually I get annoyed at everyone from George W. Bush on down who claims to speak for the Taliban. I heard W on TV saying that if we Americans don’t get out and lead our normal lives, “…then the Taliban have won.” What baloney. Where did Bush get a copy of the rules determining wins and losses?
Unfortunately, everyone seems to be setting up their own score-keeping method for whether the Taliban have won or lost. Also, far too many of us are have been setting up our own unsupported reasons about why the Taliban don’t like the US.
