Anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or hasn't ventured out very far into the real world.
Or maybe they have been in the real world long enough to know the truth from wishful thinking. For a while I too thought I had such powers but then when I started writing down actual details it turns out they weren't very accurate at all. I am willing to bet a good percentage of people has these fantasies but at some point you just have to face facts.
However imagine for a moment you are right:
If you think about it the ability to see into the future would be such a massive evolutionary advantage that there is absolutely no way it would remain hidden in dreams or only vaguely available. The first species to do this would dominate all others and would evolve and eventually take over all the other niches until all living species can see the future.
Secondly if some could see the future (even partially) then we would on average see more people who made such claims at the top of industries / careers as they have an advantage. Yet the people who make such claims are usually at the bottom. I'm not including people who work in the psychic industry as these are obviously frauds.
Thirdly - if some people could see the future they would be famous, and we would have positions designated within all power structures for such advisors. As things stand now we have a guy offering a million dollars for anyone who can prove it and still nothing.
Finally - in the 60's scientists were very interested in these questions and had look at every idiot of the street who made claims of supernatural powers. Nothing. Remember that scientists routinely deal with discovering things that function barely above 50/50.
I dare say you are probably one of the few that can read so much of what they want to hear into such a short and simple sentience. I've already said everything that can be said, yet you keep insisting I have unrelated positions which is quite frankly absurd. You now managed to top it off by declaring me a war-monger? Please take this nonsense somewhere else. This exchange has been disappointing.
Both the US state dept. human rights report in Afghanistan and amnesty international human rights report on Afghanistan reference NGO reports of Taliban use of civilians as human shields, and killing of civilians. I've got these in hard copy but they are probably on-line as well.
If the Taliban are in civilian areas, and if the NATO forces go into those areas and engage them, then why are the civilian deaths all the fault of the Taliban, and never the fault of the NATO forces? This seems to be your view, and I'm curious how you can hold this apparently hypocritical view that requires one side to stay away from civilian areas but not the other (particularly when one side are at different times both insurgent and a member of the local civilian population).
You keep asking me this - but I don't answer because this is nothing something I have claimed or talked about. As I have said I think Taliban use of civilians as shields in combat is cowardly and dishonourable. Taking up arms is not. When fighting in civilian areas I see a lot more restraint on the side of the U.S. then I do of the Taliban. This is why its an issue of tactics. If one side is acting in a way that endangers civilians outside of what would be considered due care then they carry the responsibility of the deaths of civilians. The other side still has to try and minimise it and this is what I see from the US. If the US suddenly starts acting like the Taliban is now and the Taliban suddenly discovers a regard for human life then the moral situation would have reversed as well.
Mate, your arrogance is really quite amazing. Try and tone it down. You obviously think very highly of yourself but nobody is going to talk to you if you belittle them.
Claiming the other side fights dirty using despicable tactics is an ancient wartime propaganda tactic. Blaming the other side for hiding amongst civilians is perhaps a modern corollary of that, particularly as asymmetric warfare tends to take place in urban areas when the other side has overwhelming aerial capabilities. Further, the Taliban dispute the human shield charges.
Well I guess that rebuts all the reports by NGOs, reporters, refugees, Pakistani army, the Afghan army and the US army.
So you can believe your side, but we can't agree that's a fact. I would say you're terribly naive to put all your trust in reports from your own military while ignoring the other side (if you would even bother listening to the other side). You can't have lived long in this world to think like that legitimately.
Cut this sort of nonsense out.
If so, can you explain the paradox in your view that the local insurgency can be blamed for civilian deaths from NATO munitions aimed at them, while NATO can not be blamed in the reverse case? You seem to suggest this has something to do with tactics, so go on... explain.
I don't know who many times I have to say the same thing - the Taliban take up positions in people's homes, because they know that the US wont use artillery or air-strikes. The US doesn't do this. The Taliban is not stupid, they know that civilian deaths play badly for the US's local and foreign audience so they try and cause as much as possible. The US has does its best to prevent them for exactly the above reason.
Explain how with regard to civilian deaths, the ISAF tactics are pure and good, where the local insurgency tactics are Evil(TM).
Stop twisting what I say - where did I say that the US tactics are pure and good? Have the decency to actually stick to what I say.
I don't think you are being fair in your analysis - many of the problems you state are also problems in the real world but not show stoppers (i.e. the Chinese knock-off is even cheaper). You can also sell a substandard chair for a higher price (And I dare say this is actually a business strategy for some folk:( ) but this doesn't cause our economic system to collapse. Remember that just because the price is not being set by the market, instead by some central agent, doesn't mean that you cannot select between different products or that you cannot have competition.
Nor does it mean we are going to live in 1984. In many parts of the world the government sets the price of goods - but is not a totalitarian system. It may not be the best economics but such horror stories are not warranted either.
Your "using them as shields" part is subjective spin at best. I left it in as an example of your views. The generally agreeable part is that both sides operate and engage each other in civilian areas.
This is getting ridiculous. It is not "an example of my views" it is my view, period. You can call it subjective spin or what not but a cursory search shows it to be fact. google news: Taliban using human shields If you wish to maintain that both are merely operating in civilian areas I really cannot help you but you are simply ignoring the reality.
The history is quite relevant, because it speaks to what was bound to happen when the US went beyond shutting down bin Laden and tried to remould the country's governance.
Why is it bound to happen? Afghanis are not some kind of barbaric subspecies that default to such tactics when they are in a tight spot. As I have mentioned people have fought far more oppressive forces without such tactics. It is a decision they made to use such tactics so the blame is theirs.
Would you say then also that extends similarly to the Taliban not forcing the occupying forces to kill civilians? And therefore the occupying powers being responsible for such deaths?
again you are operating under the impression that US and Taliban tactics are the same. They are not.
Turns out you have to actually search for it as it evidence doesn't just appear in your hand. But I assure you its not really that hard. This took me a minute.
Do you honestly think that scientists have not spotted that? Or that they though nobody else was going to spot that? If this was the Achilles heel of their argument - don't you think being the conspiracy theory world-wide crew they would have not shown it? Or maybe they were using reverse physiology?
ants provide a service to nature by tilling the soil and fertilizing it with their mounds of droppings. they are also part of the food chain.
This is a issue of framing. They are just doing what is best for them. Other organisms have taken advantage of what they are doing to gain for themselves. We do the same, and a number of organisms have profited from it - i.e. rats, human diseases etc. I suspect if we were static technologically for long enough an entire ecosystem would build up around us that would complete most if not all the cycles currently left wasted.
Our impact. All other critters adapt to the environment. We adapt the environment to ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's sustainable...as long as we are good stewards.
a) You're suffering from reading comprehension failure. I am not saying that, I am saying *your* logic from earlier (which I've re-quoted above), surely must invites the conclusion that when NATO forces go into civilian areas they must then bear at least some responsibility if they are attacked. For if the Taliban should take care to stay out of civilians areas, then surely so should the NATO forces? It's YOUR logic which leads to that conclusions - not mine.
Hang on - you are doing that which you are accusing me of - in what you have quoted of mine I clearly state
taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
yet this seems to disappear in your subsequent re-tellings. Are you saying that NATO is using the civilians when in an urban area as shields? Are you saying that the Taliban, and the US's approach to minimising civilian casualties is equivalent? If not then what are you saying exactly?
So you seriously think that after nearly 8 years of violence, and with a growing insurgency, that the occupying power bears not a smidgen of responsibility for this state of affairs? A state of affairs which was wholly predictable? I suspect you're young and so this doesn't apply to you, but for many of us the regular news of a superpower flailing around trying to beat an insurgency in Afghanistan, and the attendant civilian misery this causes, is like deja vu. For many of those older than me, it's like double deja-vu (though, back with the US as the bogged down superpower in that case).
This is the point I am trying to get across. All this history is irrelevant to this because the US does not force the Taliban to use human shields or to purposely try and cause civilian casualties. You could be fighting Satan for all I care and unless he pulling the trigger for you if you are actively trying to cause civilian causalities you and only you are responsible for their deaths.
Again: What is the mission in Afghanistan? Exactly how will you know when you have bombed enough Afghanis (what is this story about again?)? Why are you there? What are the measurable, finite-time goals? Can they be achieved through military action?
again, we could have the best or worst plan for Afghanistan but this does not force the Taliban to kill civilians.
You like analogies don't you? However, this isn't even a good one. How is it you can characterise the Afghani insurgents, who primarily draw their members and support from the local population by all accounts, as "murderers"? provide a good definition that excludes the occupying powers.
the analogy doesn't call insurgents murderers - its an analogy. To use an analogy to explain this using a car analogy doesn't call what you are comparing a car. It simply explains the underlying point in a different context. This is not difficult to understand.
Sigh. I mean that by your logic the NATO troops must bear the responsibility for civilian deaths caused by anti-gov forces attacking the NATO forces. By your logic nearly half of all known civilian deaths in Afghanistan are due to the direct actions of the occupying powers.
I think I see what is at the base of this - you believe that due to the US going to Afghanistan and starting the war they are responsible for any or most of the bloodshed that occurs as a result - whether they be by us forces or by the opposition to them. That by going into villages any fire they draw that hits civilians is their fault. If you think about this carefully you will note that such a world-view implies that the US is the only actor that can make choices, and all other actors have no will of their own. In this case your view would be logical, as the other actors have really no say. If the US comes into their villages they have to shoot, and if it hits civilians its not their fault but the US.
But as I'm sure you will agree - the Taliban have an ability to make choices. They can choose to hold their people in high regard. Even higher than the US, and this way win the war of hearts and minds themselves. I gave the example of the partisans to show this was possible even under a much more cruel opponent. But they have not chosen this. They have chosen a bloodthirsty option. And the blood of this choice is on their hands.
Think about it this way - if you poke a murderer and in his rage he kills several people trying to get to you - on whose hands are the blood of these people? You or the murderer?
The only thing I am concluding my good chap is that targeting civilians is not a direct cause of fighting asymmetric warfare. Read my original comment - I'm not sure where you got all this from.
So you think that the winning side in WWII are war criminals
In some cases they were. I don't think this is a controversial thing to suggest.
logic most participants in most wars (even arguably the most justified one of the 20C) were war criminals.
I would not think so. If you ordered attacks on civilians then you are a war criminal - I don't think most officers did this. Certainly some did but not most.
When you're talking about warfare, which involves killing and maiming other humans, very little is sacrosanct, and very little is honourable about it. That's not platitudes, it's a serious point about the hollow nature of boasts of 'honourable warfare'. There is no such thing.
Yes and no, its true that once you have gotten to warfare you have already lost - but if we establish solid precedent for following the rules of war, and persecuting all (including those on our side) who fail to follow them then we will see less transgressions. This way we can limit the excesses of warfare. Not to mention that honourable conduct is traditionally a starting point for peace.
It's just as cowardly to sit insulated from a conflict thousands of miles away and pull the trigger on a blurry image of a possible suspect fighter, as it is to plant bombs trying to provoke terror in civilian populations thousands of miles from a conflict. Just as cowardly to drop cluster munitions or radioactive munitions near civilian populations. All these actions inflict massive damage on innocent civilian populations, just as part of the strategy. In one case they are labelled as infidels and unworthy of consideration, in the other they are called collateral damage and considered an acceptable price of war.
I don't like this kind of thinking because not only is it not true, but its ceding the moral ground to our enemies - which we have traditionally used to our advantage. There are several levels here - there is the person who is trying his best not to cause casualties (which I think is the current US stance), the person who is targeting the enemy but not too concerned about collateral damage (which admittedly is sometimes the US stance) and finally the person who is explicitly targeting civilians. These three things are not equal, and should never be.
You wonder why I write sarcastic replies instead of serious arguments? - what you have written here is so shockingly bad I seriously hope you are just trolling me instead of someone who actually believes this intellectual train-wreck
You claimed they were dishonourable because they seek to cause civilians deaths. However the NATO forces cause a good number of deaths too, and they know their actions have a proven, high probability of causing such deaths.
These two things will never be equivalent. That is as bizarre as saying murder and driving a car are both the same as "drivers know their actions have a proven, high probability of causing such deaths".
Further, if you think that the Afghanis are dishonourable for fighting from their homes and villages, where they live, consider that the NATO forces sometimes put themselves into Afghani civilian settings (patrols, entering Afghani villages to search them). By your logic they therefore must share some of the blame for the 22% of civilian deaths which UNAMA attribute to anti-government actors attacking government/NATO forces.
What does this have to do with anything? If they are not seeking the cause civilian deaths but attacking NATO then it obviously doesn't fall under what I talked about.
Some 25% of the 2400 civilian deaths in Afghanistan last year were directly attributable to NATO/governmental action. The majority of those deaths from US air strikes.
Air strikes also sometimes accidental kill NATO troops. Do you think that they are bombing their troops on purpose? - or not really caring one way or another if it hits some nearby soldiers?
Further, with regard to the deaths cause by AGEs, the occupying powers bear at least some responsibility for the situation that has led to this violence simply because they are the responsible occupying powers, and have been so for *8* years now - yet the violence is getting worse.
This is probably the worst logic of the lot. By this logic any crime committed anywhere is the partial responsibly of the government in charge. NATO will no doubt soon start apologising for their share of the blame in all the suicide bombers, and all the killings of civilians working for the US by the Taliban.
So I ask again, when will you as (I presume) US voter stop trotting out war-mongering inanities like "oh they're so dishonourable, making us kill civilians" and start considering how the NATO powers involved (i.e. the US) can perhaps draw down the violence in Afghanistan? Perhaps *fewer air-strikes* might help??
Let me break this down for you - you may think that the tactics the US uses are suboptimal but the idea that they are either worse, or as bad as the Taliban is silly. If NATO leaves the Taliban will continue to brutally oppress their own people. They will kill anyone who has worked for the US, and/or their family as they have done so far. In areas where the Taliban is in control they implement an extremely hard line version of sharia law. As for fewer air strikes - I don't think they can do it any lower - in the last offensive they have done their best to limit it use - so much so that as a result there were injuries and deaths among NATO forces. This alone says so much about the difference between NATO and the Taliban.
Change my mind from what? I was talking about how the Taliban's use of human shields was cowardly and dishonourable. Nothing here changes that. I never claimed that they are cowards or dishonourable for talking up arms - I have no idea where you got that from.
My point is that intentionally slaughtering civilians is at least as bad as using them as human shields.
Both are of the same vein. Any time you are using civilian deaths as part of your war strategy - in whatever flavour it is then you are basically a war criminal.
I am not sure what the point of the rest of the comment is. I assume that you are not arguing that because we can rationalise anything - it should be thought of as morally equivalent.
The comment about US minimising civilian causalities clearly refers to the Afghanistan conflict, while the WW2 part was an example where insurgents did not automatically resort to using human shields. Please don't mix two unrelated quotes from my comment so that you can make an unrelated point.
Sorry but this is bullshit. Look at what partisans did in ww2. Did they fight out in town centres? No, they hid out in the forests, the mountains. They had links to people living in the town who supported them with supplies and intel, and they did raids in the town and where hidden by people in their houses - but would never dream of planning an operation that calls for shooting from a house with a family in it. Regardless of if the family was willing or not (and I doubt many would be). However this is what the Taliban are actively doing. They know that we don't like civilian deaths, and are incorporating this into their strategy. This makes them both cowards and dishonourable fighters who do deserve to be shot upon capture just for this.
Not to mention their suicide attacks within Afghanistan which typically kills far more civilians than it does military.
The US goes to great length to prevent civilian casualties - for the latest offensive they warned people about a month before. They may not be perfect but I really don't like this idea that they are somehow as bad as the Taliban in their regard for human life.
They are not cowards because they hide in caves, but because they actively seek to cause civilian deaths. Hiding in caves when you are being bombed is not cowardly - its is often a necessity in war, but taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
Sometimes you want to have a box that doesn't access the internet - but you still want to have AV updates. So you dl updates from another comp that is connected to the comp and then transfer it by whatever method is easiest. Prob is some AVs don't support this update method. Word.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who says otherwise is either narrow-minded or hasn't ventured out very far into the real world.
Or maybe they have been in the real world long enough to know the truth from wishful thinking. For a while I too thought I had such powers but then when I started writing down actual details it turns out they weren't very accurate at all. I am willing to bet a good percentage of people has these fantasies but at some point you just have to face facts.
However imagine for a moment you are right:
If you think about it the ability to see into the future would be such a massive evolutionary advantage that there is absolutely no way it would remain hidden in dreams or only vaguely available. The first species to do this would dominate all others and would evolve and eventually take over all the other niches until all living species can see the future.
Secondly if some could see the future (even partially) then we would on average see more people who made such claims at the top of industries / careers as they have an advantage. Yet the people who make such claims are usually at the bottom. I'm not including people who work in the psychic industry as these are obviously frauds.
Thirdly - if some people could see the future they would be famous, and we would have positions designated within all power structures for such advisors. As things stand now we have a guy offering a million dollars for anyone who can prove it and still nothing.
Finally - in the 60's scientists were very interested in these questions and had look at every idiot of the street who made claims of supernatural powers. Nothing. Remember that scientists routinely deal with discovering things that function barely above 50/50.
I dare say you are probably one of the few that can read so much of what they want to hear into such a short and simple sentience. I've already said everything that can be said, yet you keep insisting I have unrelated positions which is quite frankly absurd. You now managed to top it off by declaring me a war-monger? Please take this nonsense somewhere else. This exchange has been disappointing.
If the Taliban are in civilian areas, and if the NATO forces go into those areas and engage them, then why are the civilian deaths all the fault of the Taliban, and never the fault of the NATO forces? This seems to be your view, and I'm curious how you can hold this apparently hypocritical view that requires one side to stay away from civilian areas but not the other (particularly when one side are at different times both insurgent and a member of the local civilian population).
You keep asking me this - but I don't answer because this is nothing something I have claimed or talked about. As I have said I think Taliban use of civilians as shields in combat is cowardly and dishonourable. Taking up arms is not. When fighting in civilian areas I see a lot more restraint on the side of the U.S. then I do of the Taliban. This is why its an issue of tactics. If one side is acting in a way that endangers civilians outside of what would be considered due care then they carry the responsibility of the deaths of civilians. The other side still has to try and minimise it and this is what I see from the US. If the US suddenly starts acting like the Taliban is now and the Taliban suddenly discovers a regard for human life then the moral situation would have reversed as well.
Claiming the other side fights dirty using despicable tactics is an ancient wartime propaganda tactic. Blaming the other side for hiding amongst civilians is perhaps a modern corollary of that, particularly as asymmetric warfare tends to take place in urban areas when the other side has overwhelming aerial capabilities. Further, the Taliban dispute the human shield charges.
Well I guess that rebuts all the reports by NGOs, reporters, refugees, Pakistani army, the Afghan army and the US army.
So you can believe your side, but we can't agree that's a fact. I would say you're terribly naive to put all your trust in reports from your own military while ignoring the other side (if you would even bother listening to the other side). You can't have lived long in this world to think like that legitimately.
Cut this sort of nonsense out.
If so, can you explain the paradox in your view that the local insurgency can be blamed for civilian deaths from NATO munitions aimed at them, while NATO can not be blamed in the reverse case? You seem to suggest this has something to do with tactics, so go on... explain.
I don't know who many times I have to say the same thing - the Taliban take up positions in people's homes, because they know that the US wont use artillery or air-strikes. The US doesn't do this. The Taliban is not stupid, they know that civilian deaths play badly for the US's local and foreign audience so they try and cause as much as possible. The US has does its best to prevent them for exactly the above reason.
Explain how with regard to civilian deaths, the ISAF tactics are pure and good, where the local insurgency tactics are Evil(TM).
Stop twisting what I say - where did I say that the US tactics are pure and good? Have the decency to actually stick to what I say.
It's a pretty big stretch to assume gp was referring to a group of languages rather than a single one.
I don't think you are being fair in your analysis - many of the problems you state are also problems in the real world but not show stoppers (i.e. the Chinese knock-off is even cheaper). You can also sell a substandard chair for a higher price (And I dare say this is actually a business strategy for some folk :( ) but this doesn't cause our economic system to collapse. Remember that just because the price is not being set by the market, instead by some central agent, doesn't mean that you cannot select between different products or that you cannot have competition.
Nor does it mean we are going to live in 1984. In many parts of the world the government sets the price of goods - but is not a totalitarian system. It may not be the best economics but such horror stories are not warranted either.
Your "using them as shields" part is subjective spin at best. I left it in as an example of your views. The generally agreeable part is that both sides operate and engage each other in civilian areas.
This is getting ridiculous. It is not "an example of my views" it is my view, period. You can call it subjective spin or what not but a cursory search shows it to be fact. google news: Taliban using human shields If you wish to maintain that both are merely operating in civilian areas I really cannot help you but you are simply ignoring the reality.
The history is quite relevant, because it speaks to what was bound to happen when the US went beyond shutting down bin Laden and tried to remould the country's governance.
Why is it bound to happen? Afghanis are not some kind of barbaric subspecies that default to such tactics when they are in a tight spot. As I have mentioned people have fought far more oppressive forces without such tactics. It is a decision they made to use such tactics so the blame is theirs.
Would you say then also that extends similarly to the Taliban not forcing the occupying forces to kill civilians? And therefore the occupying powers being responsible for such deaths?
again you are operating under the impression that US and Taliban tactics are the same. They are not.
I don't think anyone *denies* that climate is changing.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22climate+change+is+a+lie%22
is is NOT caused primarily by man.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+climate+change+caused+by+man
in the past the earth was also hotter and contained more carbon dioxide. Who caused that
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=did+earth+have+higher+co2+levels+and+what+cause
And so on...
Turns out you have to actually search for it as it evidence doesn't just appear in your hand. But I assure you its not really that hard. This took me a minute.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=temperatures+spike+before+co2+levels
Do you honestly think that scientists have not spotted that? Or that they though nobody else was going to spot that? If this was the Achilles heel of their argument - don't you think being the conspiracy theory world-wide crew they would have not shown it? Or maybe they were using reverse physiology?
Just wait till China gets to the moon - then the US will remember there was something important it forgot in space :D
ants provide a service to nature by tilling the soil and fertilizing it with their mounds of droppings. they are also part of the food chain.
This is a issue of framing. They are just doing what is best for them. Other organisms have taken advantage of what they are doing to gain for themselves. We do the same, and a number of organisms have profited from it - i.e. rats, human diseases etc. I suspect if we were static technologically for long enough an entire ecosystem would build up around us that would complete most if not all the cycles currently left wasted.
Our impact. All other critters adapt to the environment. We adapt the environment to ourselves. There's nothing wrong with that as long as it's sustainable...as long as we are good stewards.
Beavers are one example. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_construction for more.
a) You're suffering from reading comprehension failure. I am not saying that, I am saying *your* logic from earlier (which I've re-quoted above), surely must invites the conclusion that when NATO forces go into civilian areas they must then bear at least some responsibility if they are attacked. For if the Taliban should take care to stay out of civilians areas, then surely so should the NATO forces? It's YOUR logic which leads to that conclusions - not mine.
Hang on - you are doing that which you are accusing me of - in what you have quoted of mine I clearly state
taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
yet this seems to disappear in your subsequent re-tellings. Are you saying that NATO is using the civilians when in an urban area as shields? Are you saying that the Taliban, and the US's approach to minimising civilian casualties is equivalent? If not then what are you saying exactly?
So you seriously think that after nearly 8 years of violence, and with a growing insurgency, that the occupying power bears not a smidgen of responsibility for this state of affairs? A state of affairs which was wholly predictable? I suspect you're young and so this doesn't apply to you, but for many of us the regular news of a superpower flailing around trying to beat an insurgency in Afghanistan, and the attendant civilian misery this causes, is like deja vu. For many of those older than me, it's like double deja-vu (though, back with the US as the bogged down superpower in that case).
This is the point I am trying to get across. All this history is irrelevant to this because the US does not force the Taliban to use human shields or to purposely try and cause civilian casualties. You could be fighting Satan for all I care and unless he pulling the trigger for you if you are actively trying to cause civilian causalities you and only you are responsible for their deaths.
Again: What is the mission in Afghanistan? Exactly how will you know when you have bombed enough Afghanis (what is this story about again?)? Why are you there? What are the measurable, finite-time goals? Can they be achieved through military action?
again, we could have the best or worst plan for Afghanistan but this does not force the Taliban to kill civilians.
You like analogies don't you? However, this isn't even a good one. How is it you can characterise the Afghani insurgents, who primarily draw their members and support from the local population by all accounts, as "murderers"? provide a good definition that excludes the occupying powers.
the analogy doesn't call insurgents murderers - its an analogy. To use an analogy to explain this using a car analogy doesn't call what you are comparing a car. It simply explains the underlying point in a different context. This is not difficult to understand.
Also if we are trying to show off our intellect we would say Iranians speak Persian not Farsi. Just like the Germans speak German not Deutsch.
Sigh. I mean that by your logic the NATO troops must bear the responsibility for civilian deaths caused by anti-gov forces attacking the NATO forces. By your logic nearly half of all known civilian deaths in Afghanistan are due to the direct actions of the occupying powers.
I think I see what is at the base of this - you believe that due to the US going to Afghanistan and starting the war they are responsible for any or most of the bloodshed that occurs as a result - whether they be by us forces or by the opposition to them. That by going into villages any fire they draw that hits civilians is their fault. If you think about this carefully you will note that such a world-view implies that the US is the only actor that can make choices, and all other actors have no will of their own. In this case your view would be logical, as the other actors have really no say. If the US comes into their villages they have to shoot, and if it hits civilians its not their fault but the US.
But as I'm sure you will agree - the Taliban have an ability to make choices. They can choose to hold their people in high regard. Even higher than the US, and this way win the war of hearts and minds themselves. I gave the example of the partisans to show this was possible even under a much more cruel opponent. But they have not chosen this. They have chosen a bloodthirsty option. And the blood of this choice is on their hands.
Think about it this way - if you poke a murderer and in his rage he kills several people trying to get to you - on whose hands are the blood of these people? You or the murderer?
The only thing I am concluding my good chap is that targeting civilians is not a direct cause of fighting asymmetric warfare. Read my original comment - I'm not sure where you got all this from.
So you think that the winning side in WWII are war criminals
In some cases they were. I don't think this is a controversial thing to suggest.
logic most participants in most wars (even arguably the most justified one of the 20C) were war criminals.
I would not think so. If you ordered attacks on civilians then you are a war criminal - I don't think most officers did this. Certainly some did but not most.
When you're talking about warfare, which involves killing and maiming other humans, very little is sacrosanct, and very little is honourable about it. That's not platitudes, it's a serious point about the hollow nature of boasts of 'honourable warfare'. There is no such thing.
Yes and no, its true that once you have gotten to warfare you have already lost - but if we establish solid precedent for following the rules of war, and persecuting all (including those on our side) who fail to follow them then we will see less transgressions. This way we can limit the excesses of warfare. Not to mention that honourable conduct is traditionally a starting point for peace.
It's just as cowardly to sit insulated from a conflict thousands of miles away and pull the trigger on a blurry image of a possible suspect fighter, as it is to plant bombs trying to provoke terror in civilian populations thousands of miles from a conflict. Just as cowardly to drop cluster munitions or radioactive munitions near civilian populations. All these actions inflict massive damage on innocent civilian populations, just as part of the strategy. In one case they are labelled as infidels and unworthy of consideration, in the other they are called collateral damage and considered an acceptable price of war.
I don't like this kind of thinking because not only is it not true, but its ceding the moral ground to our enemies - which we have traditionally used to our advantage. There are several levels here - there is the person who is trying his best not to cause casualties (which I think is the current US stance), the person who is targeting the enemy but not too concerned about collateral damage (which admittedly is sometimes the US stance) and finally the person who is explicitly targeting civilians. These three things are not equal, and should never be.
You claimed they were dishonourable because they seek to cause civilians deaths. However the NATO forces cause a good number of deaths too, and they know their actions have a proven, high probability of causing such deaths.
These two things will never be equivalent. That is as bizarre as saying murder and driving a car are both the same as "drivers know their actions have a proven, high probability of causing such deaths".
Further, if you think that the Afghanis are dishonourable for fighting from their homes and villages, where they live, consider that the NATO forces sometimes put themselves into Afghani civilian settings (patrols, entering Afghani villages to search them). By your logic they therefore must share some of the blame for the 22% of civilian deaths which UNAMA attribute to anti-government actors attacking government/NATO forces.
What does this have to do with anything? If they are not seeking the cause civilian deaths but attacking NATO then it obviously doesn't fall under what I talked about.
Some 25% of the 2400 civilian deaths in Afghanistan last year were directly attributable to NATO/governmental action. The majority of those deaths from US air strikes.
Air strikes also sometimes accidental kill NATO troops. Do you think that they are bombing their troops on purpose? - or not really caring one way or another if it hits some nearby soldiers?
Further, with regard to the deaths cause by AGEs, the occupying powers bear at least some responsibility for the situation that has led to this violence simply because they are the responsible occupying powers, and have been so for *8* years now - yet the violence is getting worse.
This is probably the worst logic of the lot. By this logic any crime committed anywhere is the partial responsibly of the government in charge. NATO will no doubt soon start apologising for their share of the blame in all the suicide bombers, and all the killings of civilians working for the US by the Taliban.
So I ask again, when will you as (I presume) US voter stop trotting out war-mongering inanities like "oh they're so dishonourable, making us kill civilians" and start considering how the NATO powers involved (i.e. the US) can perhaps draw down the violence in Afghanistan? Perhaps *fewer air-strikes* might help??
Let me break this down for you - you may think that the tactics the US uses are suboptimal but the idea that they are either worse, or as bad as the Taliban is silly. If NATO leaves the Taliban will continue to brutally oppress their own people. They will kill anyone who has worked for the US, and/or their family as they have done so far. In areas where the Taliban is in control they implement an extremely hard line version of sharia law. As for fewer air strikes - I don't think they can do it any lower - in the last offensive they have done their best to limit it use - so much so that as a result there were injuries and deaths among NATO forces. This alone says so much about the difference between NATO and the Taliban.
Change my mind from what? I was talking about how the Taliban's use of human shields was cowardly and dishonourable. Nothing here changes that. I never claimed that they are cowards or dishonourable for talking up arms - I have no idea where you got that from.
My point is that intentionally slaughtering civilians is at least as bad as using them as human shields.
Both are of the same vein. Any time you are using civilian deaths as part of your war strategy - in whatever flavour it is then you are basically a war criminal.
I am not sure what the point of the rest of the comment is. I assume that you are not arguing that because we can rationalise anything - it should be thought of as morally equivalent.
Wow - great arguments there - I've completely revised my position in line with yours after this spectacular piece of commentary.
The comment about US minimising civilian causalities clearly refers to the Afghanistan conflict, while the WW2 part was an example where insurgents did not automatically resort to using human shields. Please don't mix two unrelated quotes from my comment so that you can make an unrelated point.
Sorry but this is bullshit. Look at what partisans did in ww2. Did they fight out in town centres? No, they hid out in the forests, the mountains. They had links to people living in the town who supported them with supplies and intel, and they did raids in the town and where hidden by people in their houses - but would never dream of planning an operation that calls for shooting from a house with a family in it. Regardless of if the family was willing or not (and I doubt many would be). However this is what the Taliban are actively doing. They know that we don't like civilian deaths, and are incorporating this into their strategy. This makes them both cowards and dishonourable fighters who do deserve to be shot upon capture just for this.
Not to mention their suicide attacks within Afghanistan which typically kills far more civilians than it does military.
The US goes to great length to prevent civilian casualties - for the latest offensive they warned people about a month before. They may not be perfect but I really don't like this idea that they are somehow as bad as the Taliban in their regard for human life.
They are not cowards because they hide in caves, but because they actively seek to cause civilian deaths. Hiding in caves when you are being bombed is not cowardly - its is often a necessity in war, but taking up positions among civilians and using them as shields is cowardly and dishonourable.
Sometimes you want to have a box that doesn't access the internet - but you still want to have AV updates. So you dl updates from another comp that is connected to the comp and then transfer it by whatever method is easiest. Prob is some AVs don't support this update method. Word.