A war where the US were totally forced to participate, of course, like always...
So do you care about the civilians, or not? It seems possible US engagement saves more civilians than it kills. At least that is presumably the general idea.
Unlikely. There were massacres during the Taliban rule outside of war, but it was at much lower scale than in the current war, and US only helps taliban grow by its intervention, it seems, if you look at the numbers of fighters.
It's not like killing a person with certain beliefs stops the beliefs from spreading.
Your memory is wrong. You may want to look that up before making such a dumb claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_from_U.S._... Ratio of 15-20% civilian deaths is not "exceptionally low" by any means.
But it is EXCEPTIONALLY low - even more so than I remember. > Starting in the 1980s, it was often claimed that 90 percent of the victims of modern wars were civilians. > The Vietnamese government has estimated the number of Vietnamese civilians killed in the Vietnam War at two million, and the number of NVA and Viet Cong killed at 1.1 million—estimates which approximate those of a number of other sources.[19] This wo…
So essentially what you're saying is that it's ok to kill million's of people in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as it fit's into a ratio that they're killing enough enemies to make civilians inconsequential? What utter bullshit you spout and a sad world you live occupy in your own head.
Now imagine “France knowingly harbors 911 terrorists.” “French leaders take credit for car bombing which kills 23 civilians.” There’s a historical reason for this discrepancy.
Or Yemenis kill 30 Saudi date farm workers in Saud. Or, God forbid, Iran kills 30 Saudis in Saud. We've been exposed to so much propaganda that we instinctively know what is "worse", and who is "allowed" to kill without due process.
I think you’re conflating morally worse with practically worse. It’s not propaganda to note that certain countries attacking each other spell out graver consequences
Yeah? And why is that? Is it that certain countries' farm workers' lives are worth more than certain others? It sounds to me that the propaganda got you too.
Would be really so unthinkable a high army charge going to the area to make in place a public televised apology to those people, asking how can help alleviate this disaster, and returning the families a little dignity at least?
And please journalists, stop referring to the people as "tribal this" or "tribal that". To always focus on that point is unnecessary and disrespective. A father is a father in any part of the world.
> And does it go the other way? Do you create violent anti-Islamists when Muslims commit terror attacks? Were the orphans of 9/11 more likely to sign up for the US military, or commit hate crimes against Muslims than their non-directly-affected peers? Yes, of course it does. Hell, even on the recent 9/11 HN thread there were people who said they joined the military after the towers collapsed. It's only natural reacti…
I love how hn is all about logical discussion and data, but when the topic is emotional enough, now anecdotes count for something. Considering America has concentrated a large number of bombs on Afghanistan, why are they underrepresented in terrorist bombing of American targets? Why didn't the US see a spate of attacks from Cambodia in the 70s? These are all great stories that have been talked about. But unless there…
I don't know the answers to your questions, but they are good questions. Not inconsistent with the image of a feedback process I presented. As a supporting evidence, I can say that every single case of terrorism or genocide I recall from both news and history lessons always has the perpetrators retaliating for some perceived or real injustice that happened to them, or their forefathers, in the past. Circle of violence isn't a new concept.
I think you’re conflating morally worse with practically worse. It’s not propaganda to note that certain countries attacking each other spell out graver consequences
Yeah? And why is that? Is it that certain countries' farm workers' lives are worth more than certain others? It sounds to me that the propaganda got you too.
... no, they’re worth the same. Hence morally vs practically. The difference is that killing some third world farmers doesn’t cause a war between first world powers.
Alternatively if Yemen rebels attack Saudi Arabia, that’s bad. If Iran does it, everybody in a thousand mile radius starts sweating.
Can someone explain to me how the US military is still unable to distinguish pine nut farmers from IS Jihadi terrorists? Where is all this advanced military tech I keep hearing the US military is developing that people are mistaking for aliens?
The world's largest, most expensive military does not make mistakes. If they admit a mistake, it's to cover up something far more nefarious.
You mean, like Facebook “admitting” to a “bug” that “leaked” user data after they'd been caught red-handed?
Just keep bombing somewhat random people, year in and year out. Are we at the 2nd decade of this yet?
This way I promise no one will join the rebells. Why would anyone join the rebells just because their families are slaughtered? That's absurd.
(Irony.)
There comes a time when YOU would strap on a bomb belt. Just imagine that They killed half your family and then goes on telling you they will continue doing it...