home

U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School

Unbelievable.

U.S. warplanes hunting Taliban fighters bombed a religious school and mud-brick homes in southern Afghanistan on Monday, killing dozens of suspected militants and 17 civilians in one of the deadliest strikes since the American-led invasion in 2001.

Pickup trucks ferried wounded villagers to a hospital in nearby Kandahar city. One woman, cradling her injured baby, recounted seeing "dead people everywhere" after the nighttime attack.

Most of the civilians killed were women and children.

The Telegraph reports it was the "worst civilian death tolls in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001."

< Al Gore: The Hottest Star in Cannes | Duke LaCrosse Case: No Toxicology Report Turned Over >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:09:42 PM EST
    .....in one of the deadliest strikes since the American-led invasion in 2001.
    As far as we know or that has been reported.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:26:00 PM EST
    Some things never change. What's our excuse, we MEANT well? Sh*t happens? The Taliban used these people as human shields? Doesn't matter, dead is dead. Madness.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:43:18 PM EST
    No one likes civilian casualties, but here's the question: How do you propose to fight an enemy that hides with civilians? Are you under the impression that we can somehow fight a completely antiseptic war? There are civilian deaths in all wars. Tragic? Yes. Avoidable? No.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#4)
    by DonS on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:51:02 PM EST
    There are trolls, and there are provocateurs. And then there are the truly sick who regularly come from beneath their rocks to exhibit both behaviors.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Mon May 22, 2006 at 06:54:12 PM EST
    JR
    There are civilian deaths in all wars
    Which war are you describing here? Are we at war with Afghanistan? Had not heard that. Does the WOT give us license to bomb villages around the world or are there certain limits?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jo on Mon May 22, 2006 at 07:42:05 PM EST
    If the enemy was hiding in my house, my family and I would gladly give our lives in a grisly bombing attack in order to eliminate the enemy. Wait a minute, on second thought, that is absurd.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:05:10 PM EST
    Squeaky said: "Which war are you describing here? Are we at war with Afghanistan? Had not heard that. Does the WOT give us license to bomb villages around the world or are there certain limits?" Maybe you are unfamiliar with this: Sept 2001 Resolution We went to war against the Taliban on September 18, 2001. We are still fighting them. This isn't hard. As I said, there are civilian deaths in all wars, including this one. As to limits, read the resolution. It can fairly be described as a blank check.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:13:34 PM EST
    Oh yes, this is how we win people over. By killing innocents. Just lovely. We should be proud of ourselves. I'm gonna be sick.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:17:27 PM EST
    James Roberston would have been right at home writing for Pravda 20 years ago when the Russians were fighting Bin Laden in Afghanistan (and the CIA was funding and arming Bin laden).

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:44:01 PM EST
    Squeaky: Which war are you describing here? The war we fight daily against people like James Robertson........and all the psychotic nutjobs who love war no matter the cost, and want to retain enough power to lurch around the world like a nazi monster with hate and fear in their hearts. They are too cowardly to pick on somebody their own size. Russia and China for example. But children in schools are easy targets....

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:56:33 PM EST
    edger, your comment makes no sense, and I'm not advocating the targeting of civilians. I'm merely pointing out that in war, bad things happen. As to "picking on someone our own size" - the Taliban should have considered that themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves for all this

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#12)
    by Punchy on Mon May 22, 2006 at 08:57:38 PM EST
    Shorter JR--we kill whomever the f#ck we damn well please! Why? Because our leader said we could. Innocents? No such thing. Kill 'em all.

    even shorter JR...at least we stopped bankrolling the Taliban by 1992.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 09:58:50 PM EST
    i can appreciate that bad things happen in all wars but...yeah, but, this is a war that we shouldn't have been in to begin with. remember, there were no WOMD, there was only oil reserves and reconstruction that good ole bush was able to secure and cheney was able to profit from. so this isn't just about civilian casualties as much as it's about installing a government that would allow us to completely rape as we see fit.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon May 22, 2006 at 10:51:49 PM EST
    Im surprised they could outrightfully admit that instead of the usual #2 man inside just missed him. Well my guess is AlQueda's terrorist are window shopping in the streets of Iran right now and it's only a matter of time before they make Iran home. Kind of shocking that they still are after the taliban when they presumably wiped them out the first go around.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 12:42:49 AM EST
    As to "picking on someone our own size" - the Taliban should have considered that themselves. They have no one to blame but themselves for all this Of course... that's why Iraq was invaded, right? They also have no one to blame but themselves? Thanks for enlightening me. And scoolchildren in Afghanistan have no oned to blame but themselves, right? Christ, if they had any brains they'be lipsynching you, jr, instead of having the temerity to go to school right in front of your bombs and wrecking your reputation for truth, justice, mom, and apple pie, right? Such effrontery. What's the matter with the little buggers, anyway? How many of them do you have to kill before they get it? You guys are such heroes and models of self righteousness crap. You know where the door is. And don't slip on your own drool on the way out. You make me want to puke, jr.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 12:51:27 AM EST
    And yes, jr. while you guys are busy murdering kids the war on terror the rest of us are fighting is against people like you. What part of that do you not get?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 03:24:23 AM EST
    smy168 pretty much puts to death the old liberal lie, "we all supported the war in Afghanistan but this Iraq thing is just too AWFUL." She says, "this is a war we shouldn't have been in to begin with." Unless she's geographically challenged and doesn't know that Afghanistan is not Iraq.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#19)
    by roger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 03:40:16 AM EST
    Both England and Russia have learned that the Afghans always end up killing all of the occupiers in the end. Alexander couldnt hold this country. In the end, we wont either. We had a chance at it, but then we split our forces and invaded Iraq. The Afghan people will get their revenge for this act, and others.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#20)
    by HK on Tue May 23, 2006 at 05:07:35 AM EST
    Of course there are always civilian casualties in war. The comments in this thread remind me of the story of Winston Churchill allowing the bombing of Coventry to go ahead as a strategical decision. Many lives were lost and whether or not he made the right decision, it was tragic. But this instance seems to have little justification. Could the real enemy not have been attacked at another time? Have they not heard of stake-outs? What was the urgency? And how exactly does the 'logic' of bombing-innocent-people-to-save innocent-people work? We are increasingly seeing examples of how this War on Terror (such sensationalism ~ please, this is Washington not Hollywood) has seemingly been carte blanche to this administration.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 06:26:24 AM EST
    winning their hearts and minds[/snark] So tell me all you bloodthirsy ghouls, exactly at what ratio of innocent to insurgent would you finally blanche?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#22)
    by manapp99 on Tue May 23, 2006 at 06:48:44 AM EST
    The last time something this bad happened was when the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Clintons Bosnia war.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#23)
    by Peaches on Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:15:45 AM EST
    JR
    There are civilian deaths in all wars. Tragic? Yes. Avoidable? No.
    Exodus: Chapter 23; verse 7
    Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.


    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#24)
    by Sailor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:03:58 AM EST
    The last time something this bad happened was when the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Clintons Bosnia war.
    sailor's law in effect. actually, the last time something this bad happened was every day we've been in iraq.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:35:37 AM EST
    Jo... If the enemy was hiding in my house, You would either get the hell out...or at the very least, report them to the nearest authorities! However, nine times out of ten, if they are 'hiding' in a particular house, chances are the people in "harms way" are aware and in fact are supporters of the terrorists. Angie.... By killing innocents. See comments above Edger... all the psychotic nutjobs who love war no matter the cost, Nobody "loves" war... the differnce between us is some of us realize that 'like it or not' some wars are necessary and if you are going to fight...do so with all you have. They are too cowardly to pick on somebody their own size. You "pick on" who needs it!!! the rest of us are fighting is against people like you. What part of that do you not get? Oh..we get it... and so does the enemy. They see it all and you can all be proud that you are helping them immensely!! smy168... this is a war that we shouldn't have been in to begin with. remember, there were no WOMD When are you guys going to drop this tired old argument?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#26)
    by desertswine on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:38:56 AM EST
    The Melbourne Herald Sun: Only those who could find a working vehicle had been able to make the 35km journey to Kandahar for help, with many left behind, shocked villagers said at the hospital. Some were on their way, they said, as doctors in blood-splattered white uniforms hurried through the wards. Authorities had refused to allow ambulances into the stricken area, said one doctor. "It was relentless," the 38-year-old said as he waited outside the hospital for word on the fate of his wounded cousin. "It was exactly the same as when the Russians were bombing us."

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:44:55 AM EST
    even shorter JR: Screw those people. How's the pipeline coming? I doubt JR would be so pragmatic if it was HIS neighborhood, HIS school, HIS children. Those people died so you can have a limitless supply of natural gas to heat your home. Show a little compassion. Or just turn the thermostat down. That will make it all better. Slightly OT but it's interesting to observe how two regional adversaries like India and Pakistan can put aside their differences when it comes to making a profit. Mission accomplished.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:45:48 AM EST
    If the enemy was hiding in my house, my family and I would gladly give our lives in a grisly bombing attack in order to eliminate the enemy. Wait a minute, on second thought, that is absurd.
    Well Jo, I would recommend you not allow a known terrorist to stay at your place.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#29)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:51:01 AM EST
    BB, Does the word backwash mean anything to you? When are you guys going to drop this tired old argument? Somebody give the baby his binkie.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#30)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:55:37 AM EST
    Well Jo, I would recommend you not allow a known terrorist to stay at your place. Oh yes, anytime armed men come into my house, the first thing I tell them is to get out. It always works. God DA*N there are some malignantly stupid people people in this country.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:00:46 AM EST
    so come on ghouls, tell us how many innocents you're willing to kill to get 1 militant.
    However, nine times out of ten, if they are 'hiding' in a particular house, chances are the people in "harms way" are aware and in fact are supporters of the terrorists.
    show us some facts, not your bloodthirsty opinion. Armed folks break into a house and hold guns on the inhabitants. If the inhabitants try to escape or cry out they get killed. And thats just the US military, imagine what the taliban would do. BTW, afghanistan was supposed to be a settled democracy, or do you think maybe bush lied about that too? Oh, and where's OBL?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:13:09 AM EST
    where's ppj, dead muslim kids would give him a chubby for a month.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:15:55 AM EST
    dead muslim kids would give him a chubby for a month. still enjoying the afterglow, like BB & jr...

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    this stuuf is like neo-con viagra

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:22:32 AM EST
    When are you guys going to drop this tired old argument? Truth hurts, huh? Too bad. Deal with it.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:34:05 AM EST
    Oh..we get it... and so does the enemy. They see it all and you can all be proud that you are helping them immensely!! Gee, BB. Karl & his hand puppet George sure did a good job programming you, didn't they? How does it feel to have them both laughing at you?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:48:23 AM EST
    The same people who hold the "war is hell" view are the same ones who go ballistic when one of ours is killed, kidnapped etc. Its the same old hypocritical BS.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:48:30 AM EST
    even shorter JR...at least we stopped bankrolling the Taliban by 1992.
    Actually no,
    Bush Gives Taliban $10 Million To Fight Opium
    that was in 2001. 43 million in 2002 but did it work?
    Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.
    cato institute In 2006:
    ...The small Taliban revival is being funded by opium and heroin. Half of Afghanistan's GDP is probably from the drug trade, and there is danger of narco-terrorism on a Colombian scale..... Eradication efforts are not going well.... If the US had not run off to the Iraq quagmire.... Instead, Afghanistan is still a mess, and Iraq is ever more of one. Bush has the opposite of the Midas touch-- everything he touches turns to rubble
    juan cole Wonder if the iran contra crew's (aka eveready bunnies) patriotic lust for extra cash has kicked in to fund things the congress would never support, like secret prison camps for torture. With Afghanistan producing 75% of the world's opium supply I can not imagine that our freedom fighters would not demand their fair share. Protection is very very expensive.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dadler on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:27:33 AM EST
    And today, realizing this is the area in which my little brother is serving, I'm happy as hell another military f-up makes him and even bigger target. Does the military EVER do a cost-benefit analysis? Or are these kinds of bombings so run-of-the-mill that no one cares?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:32:45 AM EST
    I know how you feel Dadler. My brother is at CentCom in Qatar - right across the water from Georges next planned foreign policy disaster...

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dadler on Tue May 23, 2006 at 10:58:49 AM EST
    Edge, It just plain sucks, man. My bro called our mom on his satellite phone last week, from the top of some f-knows-where mountain in Southern Afghanistan, where he's cheif advisor to an Afghan Army unit. Talked about how much he really loved the villagers he works with. I can't imagine what he's feeling today. He's far too sensitive a guy to start with. Shouldn't even be there. I gotta go for a walk.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#42)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    Take care, Dadler.... my best to your brother.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 11:25:53 AM EST
    oh my god! the trained chimp b.b, is imitating ppj's style.

    Oh, and where's OBL? Good question...ummm let's see now... "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 "I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'" - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 URGENT UPDATE: He's hiding in Iran! We have to invade!! No wait...he's made it to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...we have to drill him out!

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#46)
    by Al on Tue May 23, 2006 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    WarPropagandaRobot:
    No one likes civilian casualties, but here's the question: How do you propose to fight an enemy that hides with civilians?
    Bin Laden isn't hiding with civilians. He's the one who ordered the World Trade Center bombings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the Taliban, nasty piece of work that they are, had as much to do with 9-11 as Saddam Hussein did.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#47)
    by soccerdad on Tue May 23, 2006 at 12:14:15 PM EST
    I know the Taliban, nasty piece of work that they are, had as much to do with 9-11 as Saddam Hussein did.
    Oh, you mean nothing!

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#48)
    by desertswine on Tue May 23, 2006 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    oh my god! the trained chimp b.b, is imitating ppj's style.
    As far as I can tell, it's the same guy.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 12:17:39 PM EST
    desertswine - What the heck. Maybe it will work for BB? It sure doesn't work for PPJ. ;-)

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#50)
    by soccerdad on Tue May 23, 2006 at 12:18:19 PM EST
    yeah...let's analize this next 'raid' and see if it's really needed.
    No, the cost benefit analysis would be trying to determining if killing x civilians along with y insurgents is worth the increased bad will. Remember, hearts and minds. You should always try to create fewer new insurgents than you are killing off. A noval concept for the heads of this clownshow.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#51)
    by desertswine on Tue May 23, 2006 at 12:41:12 PM EST
    Well, Boeing is making us a couple of billion dollars worth of nice new "urban bombs" guaranteed, they say, to limit civilian casualties. Any bets? Thanks Boeing.

    The bombing is clearly tragic. That said, what's the big concern about "hearts and minds?" I must admit I've never really looked into it, but is that a standard goal of war? Or has it only become a "goal" f the conflicts we're in now? Or is it a Bush phrase that we're throwing back in his face?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Tue May 23, 2006 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    By using the smaller bombs, planes can carry about four times as many bombs and fire them from farther away. A B-2 Stealth bomber can carry as many as 80 of the small-diameter bombs.
    You pay extra for the extra convenience. How much more money do they make? Normal size bon bons are much cheaper that the bite size version. But, like the bombs more, you can eat more and more can fit in your pockets. Sick how the death industry works the same as the sweets industry.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Tue May 23, 2006 at 01:27:05 PM EST
    Hearts and minds is a term that has been in use in the military for some time especially as it applies to asymmetric warfare. It applies to the situation where you have an insurgency that is occuring within a population where a large portion of the people are not involved in the insurgency and the primary goal is to rid the country of the insurgency as opposed to conquering the entire country. Killing innocent bystanders has the result of making the insurgents seem more "reasonable", validates many of the claims of the insurgents as well as provides a motive, revenge, for more people to join the insurgency.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    if you use aircraft to target individuals it WILL KILL civilians. that is at the very least willful negligence. having our soldiers in iraq is putting me in danger, not 'saving my 'a$$' like some idiots would claim. iraq, which bush has acknowledged was danger to us, had no ability to harm me before our illegal war. and here's a link to 540,000 pages, many of which link to us military killing civilians.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dadler on Tue May 23, 2006 at 01:56:13 PM EST
    BB, Joining of your own free will is one thing. The organization you joined then proceeding to lie to and use you in ways utterly COUNTERproductive to genuinely addressing the problems faced, well, that's quite another. Can we agree on that? Can we agree that the CIVILIAN CONTROLLED MILITARY has an obligation to use its soldiers in the most prudent, judicious, effective way possible? Or is their job to just do whatever they're told, regardless of how f'ing stupid, illogical, and critically bereft it is? I am the only person in my entire family who KNOWS what he and I went through when we were kids, and I KNOW he has no business being there, and any organization worth a sh*t would realize that.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#57)
    by Dadler on Tue May 23, 2006 at 01:59:38 PM EST
    Put a nice unit of soldiers in every village in town. Period. That would keep the Taliban from victimizing these people in the first place. But that would "cost" too much, requires too much of a committment, and would require admitting what we had done up to this point had been an ineffective joke. We're there to spread democracy at the RIGHT price, not at any price, no matter the rhetoric from the White House.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#58)
    by HK on Tue May 23, 2006 at 02:31:25 PM EST
    I find it despicable that some people seem to believe that in signing up to the military a person is agreeing to be an opinion-free, unfeeling pawn. It is this expectation that leads to some members of the military committing atrocities with the excuse that they were only obeying orders. The fact is that military personnel have been used and abused by the current administration. This is not just a game of soldiers.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#59)
    by Sailor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 03:01:11 PM EST
    when jenna and not-jenna sign up I'll believe bush is serious about the war. BTW, what ever happened to:
    Jenna who graduated with a degree in literature from the University of Texas, is pursuing a career in teaching, said Johndroe.
    Barbara who graduated from the prestigious Yale University, where her presidential father and grandfather, George H.W. Bush, studied, will work in a program to fight against AIDS in Africa and Europe.


    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#60)
    by Sailor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 03:14:20 PM EST
    That said, what's the big concern about "hearts and minds?" I must admit I've never really looked into it, but is that a standard goal of war?
    Hi suo, the point was if the populace hates us more than 'the insurgents' (who are of the people), the country will never stabilize as long as we are there. Why are we supposedly doing regime change, building schools, installing democracy, repeairing the infastructure ... etc. if not to win the support of the people? BTW, anyone know the percentage of Americans that participated in our revolution?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#61)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue May 23, 2006 at 06:13:06 PM EST
    Civilians dead at the hands of the US. Christmas in May for the lefties. You've been dreaming of this. The Geneva Convention says that the group which hunkers down--paraphrasing here--among members of the protected class (civilians) is legally responsible for the casualties among the protected class. If you were the least bit honest, you'd have at least something to say about the Taliban's overt attempt to get civilians killed. It is illegal, it is a crime against the laws of war to shelter among civilians. If you were the least bit honest, you'd be concerned about the civilians killed by the Taliban, as well. Nope. This is an old story, guys. Pretending outrage is transparent. For the left, dead civilians are not a concern. Dead civilians are a tool, who will be lamented publicly only if a political point can be made, and ignored otherwise. Seen it for thirty years. You fool nobody.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 06:24:19 PM EST
    I don't see where any talibaqn were killed in the strike. They must of been hiding in the basement bomb shelter, right aubrey?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#63)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue May 23, 2006 at 06:44:07 PM EST
    Big. They wre hiding in a town, a village, actually. They engaged coalition forces from those buildings. Whether they were in every building struck or not is not clear. How the coalition is supposed to be able to tell the difference, if any, is beyond current technology, a fact that both the Taliban, or whomever else the left favors, and the left find useful. If we could tell for certain, fewer civilians would be killed and then what would you do? As it happens, the US has developed an artillery shell which is accurate to within eight meters (tests show sevn to ten meters) at a range of fifteen miles. It is also designed to have a fall-to-target of close to vertical instead of the nearly forty-five degrees that normal artillery has. This will allow the US gunners to drop a round in a specific building, even one surrounded by other buildings. This was a horrendously expensive research project, and the shell itself is many times as expensive as a conventional shell. But we did it to preserve civilian lives and to allow the arty to fire closer to US troops. That will reduce casualties among all but the bad guys. Just think. Fewer civilians killed. You'll have to think of something else to pretend to be outraged about. You'll note the report says it's the worst since the fall of the Taliban, which is to say, bad as it is, it's still preferable to what went before. Anyway, you know you're full of it. I know it. You are no doubt annoyed to hear that everybody knows this is bogus outrage.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 06:45:06 PM EST
    hey aubrey let's just nuke em, we'll kill millions of civilians, but, we'll get some of them thar talibasn. I mean how dare the civilians be hunkered in the same country with the armed taliban.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 06:45:37 PM EST
    They were busy projecting, weren't they bigunit?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:14:40 PM EST
    What would you say if the Marines were hold up in an American school? You would certainly claim that it was a military target, just like the WTC and the Pentagon according to your darling Ward. Goddamn,you f**king people disgust me. Go ahead, ban me.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#67)
    by Al on Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:32:15 PM EST
    Aubrey:
    Civilians dead at the hands of the US. Christmas in May for the lefties. You've been dreaming of this.
    Aubrey, only a really, really sick bastard dreams of people dying to make a political point. If such a thought occurs to you, please keep it to yourself. JRT, dreaming up a fantasy scenario and then faulting others because in your fantasy they didn't react as they should have, is, how shall I put this, insane. I have an idea: Why don't you ban yourself?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#68)
    by Dadler on Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    Thanks, Richard. I'll remember to check with you the next time I need to figure something out. How to explain as simply as I can: There are times, many times, when these bombings do MORE harm than good. Period. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE TIMES! We make a decision that twenty or however many dead civilians is WORTH it, when time and time again it's been proven it isn't. And technology is great, but it doesn't matter to the dead. Nor would it to either of us were our families accidentally obliterated on the chance there might be a few dozen or so (of the how many tens of thousands?) of enemy in a certain building. We never had adequate manpower in the country to provide adequate security, we still don't. The problem isn't our precision guided munitions are too good, it's, once again, the civilian leadership of the military LONG AGO f*cked this one up, as they did in Iraq, as they will in...

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#69)
    by Sailor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:41:11 PM EST
    Gee JRT, I hope you won't get banned before you tell us WHAT RATIO OF INNOCENTS TO MILITANTS do you deem acceptable to kill? None of the wrongwingers have ever addressed that question.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:52:48 PM EST
    Posted by bigunit12 May 23, 2006 10:13 AM where's ppj, dead muslim kids would give him a chubby for a month.
    That is completely out of line, you sick S.O.B..

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#71)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:55:08 PM EST
    Dadler. Some times the advantage of something like this goes to the other side. In this case, it goes to the lefties. And, yes, it's a sick bastard who thinks this is a good thing. That's why I pointed out that it's Christmas in May for the lefties. Dead civilians at the hands of the US--great. At the hands of the enemies of the US--yawn. That's about as sick as it gets. Dad. If we had more guys, we'd either have done this more frequently, had higher casualties earlier on and, maybe, be done by now. But having "security" means killing the guys who want to fight and scaring those who aren't dead yet. That means fighting and, when the bad guys see how you lefties use dead civilians, it encourages them to act in such a way as to get civilians killed in the fighting. Having more people doesn't change that. There are two possibilities for the bad guys regarding civilians. Hide among them and the Americans don't shoot. That means bad guys live to kill more Americans and civilians. Good for the left. Or the Americans shoot and some bad guys get killed--bad for the other team--but some civilians get killed, which is good for the other team and the lefties. It's a win-win, except for the civilians who aren't consulted in this. Hence the emphasis on the most precise munitions possible. Each month, we're capable of more discrimination. Not perfect, yet, so you've got some time to think of something else, but it's coming. My suggestion is, if you're honest and moral as you imply you (pl) are, object vociferously to those who hide among civilians. Call them for what they are. But you won't. Dead civilians are too useful.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 07:56:39 PM EST
    JRT, dreaming up a fantasy scenario and then faulting others because in your fantasy they didn't react as they should have, is, how shall I put this, insane. I have an idea: Why don't you ban yourself?
    It is called an analogy Al. Please tell me where I am off and will will be happy to clarify, defend or retract. As I have said before, if any two of you ask me to, I will stop posting- promise.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#73)
    by Al on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:08:40 PM EST
    Aubrey, the issue here is not "the left"'s morality. It's your morality: You are the one defending the killing of civilians. Earlier I pointed out that the real enemy, the one that actually perpetrated the attacks of 9-11, Osama bin Laden, is not hiding among civilians. So why aren't all those planes and all those troops chasing him? Don't tell me he can't be found. In the 1960's, the CIA had no trouble in hunting down Che Guevara in the Bolivian jungle and shooting him dead. I'll tell you why I think Osama is still alive, and why I think the bombing of a religious school full of children under the pretext of some holy war against terrorism is so utterly hypocritical and so utterly contemptible. If Osama were captured and killed, it would be game over for Al Qaeda, and for the phoney "war on terror". Osama is more useful to Bush alive than dead. It provides the regime with the perfect excuse to continue occupying countries with the pretext that they're fighting terrorism. The country's military leaders know perfectly well that the real terrorists, Osama, Mullah Omar, and a handful of lieutenants, are nowhere near a school. The country's military leaders are not showing the slightest interest in finding the real terrorists and bringing them to justice. Notice how silent Robertson became after I asked about Osama.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#74)
    by Al on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    No, JRT, I can tell an analogy when I see one, and so can everyone else here. And if we f*****g disgust you, as you say, I don't see why you should want to spend another moment here.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#75)
    by Sailor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:29:23 PM EST
    Since they never addressed it, I'll ask again:
    Gee JRT, I hope you won't get banned before you tell us WHAT RATIO OF INNOCENTS TO MILITANTS do you deem acceptable to kill?
    None of the wrongwingers have ever addressed that question.


    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#76)
    by Sailor on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:05:49 PM EST
    What would you say if the Marines were hold up in an American school?
    Aside from the fantasyland exhibited, and the peculiar reverse spoonerism ... I'd have to say "don't bomb them!"

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#77)
    by squeaky on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:29:55 PM EST
    This sort of fighting has to be done on the ground, not indiscriminate bombing from above and no killing civilians period. The poppy production has flourished during our war on the taliban. No doubt we are in on it. Iran-Contra II. No ground troops? Is it that the locals hate us? Or is it that we hate the locals enough to just bomb everyone from the air?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:37:51 PM EST
    Aubrey makes some variation on the same post over and over: in essence, nobody gives a sh*t (paricularly the Left) about preventing unnecessary suffering; its all about good and bad propaganda oppurtunities. Two words for you pal.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Tue May 23, 2006 at 09:44:23 PM EST
    "The advantage goes to the other side" What the eff kind of world does that putz live in? Yeah, we all want horrendous things to happen here and abroad because it makes Bush look bad. Projection 101.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#80)
    by Edger on Tue May 23, 2006 at 11:03:14 PM EST
    Jondee: Projection 101. It is, yes. But it's worse than that too. A standard psycho rovian debating tactic as well. When faced with an indefensible occurrence, in this case the murdering of defenseless children and women, attempt to turn the tables and get your critics defending themselves against the trumped up charge of, in so many words 'being happy that this happened because it gives you some dreamed of political advantage'. Divert from the real issue. Demonize your critics. At all costs avoid addressing the issue. Standard rovian, and aubreyan, tactics. He's indadvertently right about one thing though; it is a sick, sick, sick bastard who would try to score political points out of this. Which is why he tries so hard to avoid and to shift the blame as he tries to score his points. Pink asked two questions in a song awhile back that applies to Aubrey, and JRT, and the rest of these psycho's:
    What do you feel when you look in the mirror?
    ...
    Can you even look me in the eye?
    I already know the answer. They can, because they feel nothing... Dead civilians are a tool, who will be lamented publicly only if a political point can be made, and ignored otherwise. Seen it for thirty years. You fool nobody, Aubrey. You're also now added to my list of people not worth the time to debate or respond to. In the words Charlie used one day to another of your type, before he was banned for insulting the likes of you, while we remain listening to you who are far more offensive:
    You're a dinosaur. Go find a tar pit and fall into it. Metaphorically speaking.
    Meaning you're a dying breed. You just have a loud death rattle.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Tue May 23, 2006 at 11:38:12 PM EST
    Edger - Yes indeed. Accusing others of lying as a cover for treason is allowed here, but a little Leftwing Jewish sarcasm (refined over a millenium and an artform in itself) isnt. That whole recent Massaoui thread was contaminated by one troll accusing those concerned about inhumane prison conditions of lying as a cover for being terrorist sympathizers. A double insult all the way down the thread. But the Dinasaurs, no matter how crack brained, have been around for a while and have a little pull around here apparently.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:29:55 AM EST
    Dinosaur/Schmendrick.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#83)
    by HK on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:42:12 AM EST
    Civilians dead at the hands of the US. Christmas in May for the lefties. You've been dreaming of this.
    Yeah, Aubrey, we're cracking open the bubbly as you write. I may be a little naive here, but I live in hope that I find such things deplorable not because I am a 'Leftie' but because I am an intelligent human being with integrity and principles. Is this really inextricably linked to political affiliation?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:04:11 AM EST
    Just keep your mouth shut about EVERYTHING while Richards Fuhrer is in power and everything will be alright.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:20:37 AM EST
    Silence is for lambs, and sheep, and shtick holtz bushlickers.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:44:28 AM EST
    Nobody "loves" war... the differnce between us is some of us realize that 'like it or not' some wars are necessary and if you are going to fight...do so with all you have. You mean like when you are defending yourself and your country against an amoral aggressor? Defnding yourself against one who has no compunctions about targeting schools, and women, and children? Defending yourself like the Afghanis do? Like the Iraqis do? If you are going to fight...do so with all you have.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#87)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:50:32 AM EST
    Cracking open the bubbly. That's exactly what I thought, although Christmas in May seemed to be more inclusive. Once the bubbly's gone, it's gone. This lasts for weeks, if not months. Saw an old history book referring to the late nineteenth century independence movements in the Balkans. The zealots often facilitated the killing of their own countrymen at the hands of the Turks "to dramatize their suffering in the eyes of Europe". The zealots knew the "eyes of Europe" would get all misty over this, but pretty vague, if not looking elsewhere when the zealots killed their own countrymen themselves for not being adequately on board. Some things never change. BTW. I was not defending killing these people. I was making the point that your faux outrage is old and transparent. It would be different to fight this on the ground, but that means only that the heavy munitions are fired from the ground, not the air, and the same possibilities exist for killing civilians. Those who would say "don't bomb them" if the bad guys are hiding among civilians award the victory to the side which hides among civilians. For lefties, of course, this seems like a good idea, since they share the same sense of morality. But for the rest of us, no thanks. Extend that. One side straps a civilian to the front of each of his armored vehicles. What do do? Well, of course that depends. If it's an enemy of the US, it's good. It also means don't shoot, which means an enemy of the US wins, which is good for lefties. OBL is not the only enemy. The Taliban are trying to put take the country back from the current government which was elected, as if elections impress lefties. Guys, you are so over. Rending your lapels and pretending tears is OVER. It's been done and it no longer works. As to whether this kind of accident has a positive or negative effect on the US effort.... Of course it's negative. To make a historical example, lots of civilians were killed in Belgium during the fighting in WW II. But, whatever their freinds and families thought of the Allies, the Allies won the war. My father's division reduced their use of artillery when fighting in Holland, because Holland has a high population density and, unlike other parts of occupied Europe, few of them had fled. Artillery being less discriminating than direct fire, this probably saved Dutch lives. But, to the extent that it delayed getting the Germans out of Holland, it cost Dutch lives. Not an easy calculation. Not that lefties much care, unless the dead civilians are politically useful.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edger on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:59:02 AM EST
    What's that buzzing noise in here? Somebody leave the screen door open again?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#89)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 05:05:25 AM EST
    Think of the Button A, Button B question. Button A, if you push it, means everything is coming up roses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Peace, prosperity, freedom. Bush looks good. Button B. Things go in the crapper, Bush looks bad. The US is greatly disadvantaged in the WOT Which button do lefties push? Irrespective of what you claim, which button do you think the rest of us think you would push?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#90)
    by HK on Wed May 24, 2006 at 05:18:56 AM EST
    Or Button C. Things remain exactly the same but Richard Aubrey stops talking s**t. Or just stops talking. Either works for me.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#91)
    by HK on Wed May 24, 2006 at 05:22:29 AM EST
    Oh and it seems we are not the only people he bugs. Check out this:
    Richard, I'll happily pay for your plane ticket to Iraq if you promise to stay there. Posted by: John Yuda on May 29, 2003 at 10:11 AM
    I'm typing with one hand and reaching for my contribution with the other.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edger on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:16:22 AM EST
    HK, If they only post occassionally they might be taken seriously because readers might not see through some of the slickness. The more Aubrey and others like him post here the more people see them for what they are, and realize they are not worth a response. Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#93)
    by Edger on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:36:46 AM EST
    It was the second time in five weeks that [President Hamid] Karzai has complained about civilian deaths from airstrikes by the U.S.-led coalition.
    ...
    One villager, Haji Ikhlaf, told The Associated Press that 26 civilians had been buried by early Tuesday - higher than the toll given by officials. Karzai's office said 16 civilians died, though a local doctor told the AP a 17th died of his injuries. "We've buried women. We've buried children," Ikhlaf, 40, said by cell phone from the area, which has been closed off to reporters by local security forces. ``They are killing us. We are so angry.'' ... "Karzai's actions are a response to [Afghan] public opinion, which is increasingly resentful of the American presence," he said. Guardian Unlimited, May 23


    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#94)
    by Che's Lounge on Wed May 24, 2006 at 07:33:05 AM EST
    RA, Civilians dead at the hands of the US. Christmas in May for the lefties. You've been dreaming of this. That's too easy. I gotta let it go. People like this are miserable to begin with. It's not fair to pile on.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#95)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 24, 2006 at 07:58:37 AM EST
    You can always tell on these blogs who's got the best argument because he is the one who gets slapped by all kinds of nasty personal attacks.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#96)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed May 24, 2006 at 09:06:06 AM EST
    soccerdad... No, the cost benefit analysis would be trying to determining if killing x civilians along with y insurgents is worth the increased bad will Captain...we have information that the group of insurgents we were fighting are now hold up in that house down the street. Ok..thanks... let's get the "cost benefit analysis" team in here and see what they say. Sit tight men.. this might take a few hours to figure out. But Catpain, they might slip away under the cover of darkness. Well... that's the way it goes...we can't risk it... after all... several more people might not like us if we act now, besides, ABC news is watching! Killing innocent bystanders has the result of making the insurgents seem more "reasonable", That's funny...I would think blowing yourself up, along with innocent people, in the village square would effect the "hearts & minds" too? Why is there no talk coming from you about that distinct possibility? Sailor... if you use aircraft to target individuals it WILL KILL civilians. that is at the very least willful negligence. There you go...hating the military again. Maybe we should get on the bullhorn and warn them first? Or...ban aircraft? Hand to hand combat...how about that? Of course even then one can't be sure that the guy trying to stab you is actually your enemy ...huh? Dadler... The organization you joined then proceeding to lie to So..the Army told him what? He'd be planting flowers? and use you in ways utterly COUNTERproductive to genuinely addressing the problems faced, Counter productive? Jeez..what did they tell him? The Army is about War..killing..that's their job and I doubt they tried to lie about that. Besides, it's not the foot soldiers job to decide..or even comment on policy. They are to follow orders..period! Can we agree on that? I guess not? Can we agree that the CIVILIAN CONTROLLED MILITARY has an obligation to use its soldiers in the most prudent, judicious, effective way possible? Well..the military isn't really "civilain controlled". The Prez is the Commander in Cheif after all. I will agree they should be used effectively.. but unfortunately, that rarely happens. Or is their job to just do whatever they're told, regardless of how f'ing stupid, illogical, and critically bereft it is? Yes... as I stated above.. that's their job. The guy in the trench has no access to what is happening in the "big picture" so he can't make informed desicions on what is the best course of action in all cases. and I KNOW he has no business being there Then he shouldn't have joined. Put a nice unit of soldiers in every village in town Nice? And exactly what does that mean? I think our soldiers are nice. Of course getting shot at would change their attitude I would think?

    What's the argument? That we need to kill a lot of civilians to win a guerilla war? Well then Richard Aubrey should make the distinction between fighting the Nazis and fighting the Taliban. Of course, then it falls to comparing this war with any other guerilla war that the US has been involved in. And that's not gonna get the same warm, fuzzy feeling as a WWII analogy. It's all about casting the killing of people in the right light. This is a tricky proposition to begin with, made more so since we have no clear objectives here. I like Sailor's questions: 1. Where's Bin Laden? 2. What ratio of civilian to Taliban deaths is unacceptable? Can't say I am surprised that those questions have been greeted with silence by the usual suspects.

    The Taliban are trying to put take the country back from the current government which was elected, as if elections impress lefties.
    Exactly the same argument made 40 years ago during the Vietnam debacle, just sub Viet Cong for Taliban. And you claim that "lefties" are tired and monotonous?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#99)
    by soccerdad on Wed May 24, 2006 at 09:26:56 AM EST
    BB are you really that stupid or you just playing the village idiot on this blog

    HK... The fact is that military personnel have been used and abused by the current administration. Here we go... Yes..GW is the first and ONLY prez to abuse the military! Ever hear of Viet Nam??? Richard A... Just think. Fewer civilians killed. You'll have to think of something else to pretend to be outraged about. I get very agitated every time one of these libs goes off on our military. The FACT is...our guys go out of their way (sometimes endangering themselves even more ) to avoid civilian casualties! You are 100% correct. This is just another thing they think they can dangle in front of this administration. They don't have a clue! Irrespective of what you claim, which button do you think the rest of us think you would push? Good question..of course it will be met with snarky remarks! Al... Osama bin Laden, is not hiding among civilians. And you KNOW this how??? Jondee... we all want horrendous things to happen here and abroad because it makes Bush look bad. That sums it up nicely!

    If more innocent civilians would die as a result of the Taliban operating freely then from attacking, then we should attack.
    And how do we do the math to answer that hypothetical? We just heave some bombs at some mosques in the test case and not heave any bombs at the mosques in the null case, then compare results?
    The Taliban's trying to promote anarchy is an additional evil which causes suffering among innocent people.
    And doesn't our heaving bombs at mosques help the Taliban reach their anarchy quotient?
    People forget that the Taliban was primarily developed/imposed by Arab outsiders (like Osama bin Laden) and is hardly a "liberation movement" in Afghanistan. In fact, it was a colonial movement run by radical fundamentalist Arabs.
    And people also forget that it was the United States that made Bin Laden into the superstar terrorist that he is today. Without us, NONE of this would have been possible. Which is why a left wing nutcase like me is always a bit wary about trusting the CIA to know what's best for my national and personal security.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#102)
    by soccerdad on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:04:30 AM EST
    The FACT is...our guys go out of their way (sometimes endangering themselves even more ) to avoid civilian casualties!
    this is so wrong its laughable. But I'm sure you know that. So your argunment boils down to "you're not patriotic and are just a bush hater". Truly the most feeble of the neocon responses.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#103)
    by HK on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    I find the idea that criticism from civilians of allied countries of their leadership somehow furthers the cause of the enemy ridiculous. Short of an opinion poll among Taliban members, I don't see how this can be substantiated. And this:
    Here we go... Yes..GW is the first and ONLY prez to abuse the military! Ever hear of Viet Nam???
    Is pure nonsense. Do we not criticise what we perceive to be a wrong-doing simply because it has been done before? Come on!

    bb, you may be the dumbest person alive, you make jessica simpson seem like a friggin' genuis. jrt, i stand by my statement about ppj and his chubby, gotta call em like i see them. i've seen jrt lie ans spin, but not a word of regret about the murdered kids. so, bite me, loser

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#105)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 10:38:06 AM EST
    Soc. You don't seem to get it. It doesn't matter what you say when everybody knows better. We have had guys killed due to restrictive rules of engagement--designed to protect civilians--since at least Viet Nam. Note Fallujah. Instead of bombing the place flat and only the bomb loaders back at base get sweaty, we sent our young men door to door like Fuller Brush salesmen, taking casualties. In addition, we stored up further trouble by allowing the civilians to leave, among whom were surely some bad guys. I don't say this on the assumption you don't know it. You're smart enough to know it. I'm trying to address your presumption that nobody else knows it and would thus believe your lies.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:00:19 AM EST
    RA-
    Note Fallujah. Instead of bombing the place flat and only the bomb loaders back at base get sweaty, we sent our young men door to door like Fuller Brush salesmen, taking casualties.
    How quaint. Guess that is the version that you get from Fox and Powerline.
    In Fallujah, US warplanes hit what they believed was a safe house used by the al-Tawhid terrorism group. The Gulf Daily New writes: ' Twelve Iraqis, including five children and two women, were reported killed in the airstrike, a doctor said. Nine others were wounded. Iraq's Health Ministry said at least 16 people had been killed in fighting in Fallujah in the past 24 hours. '
    One of hundreds of reports on the bombing of Fallujah. Juan Cole And the damage done:
    AlertNet provides an update on Fallujah. The article says that 70 percent of homes in the city have been destroyed. Something between 160,000 and 210,000 residents, out of 250,000 - 300,000 before last November's assault, are still living in tents or with relatives elsewhere. The article says,
    Juan Cole Pathetic. Nice try for those with permanent memory loss.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#107)
    by Sailor on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:07:23 AM EST
    Instead of bombing the place flat and only the bomb loaders back at base get sweaty, we sent our young men door to door like Fuller Brush salesmen
    further and further from reality:
    "The Fight for Fallujah," in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes ...." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.]
    and:
    Human Rights Watch has also documented numerous cases in which military authorities have failed to adequately investigate allegations of indiscriminate or excessive force against civilians. In October, Britain's Channel 4 news aired video footage, shot from a cockpit camera, that appears to show U.S. pilots attacking and killing a group of unarmed civilians in Fallujah. The British newspaper the Independent carried a story about the April incident, which has gotten no coverage in mainstream U.S. media.


    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#108)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    Sailor. I thought it was on TL that we discussed WP. It's not a terror weapon. t's not a chemical weapon, any more than high explosive is. It's smoke. It drives people out of enclosed places. It hurts and kills, but it's not as bad, or as effective, as high explosive. Even if the discussion I recall was elsewhere, rest assured that gasping about WP is not going to impress anyone. Most people know better which is why so few take you (sing. & pl.) seriously. The point I made, that instead of flattening Fallujah-- doing a Hamburg or Dresden on it, we sent our grunts in--stands, as you admit. We could have done worse, and we didn't, and we took casualties because of it. Which was one of my points.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#109)
    by Peaches on Wed May 24, 2006 at 11:51:06 AM EST
    Note Fallujah. Instead of bombing the place flat and only the bomb loaders back at base get sweaty, we sent our young men door to door like Fuller Brush salesmen, taking casualties. In addition, we stored up further trouble by allowing the civilians to leave, among whom were surely some bad guys.
    Richard, Just to be clear. Some here might interpret this to mean that you would actually advocate a Dresden-like bombing on a Falluja versus sending in the Marines. Are you? Obviously, we could avoid taking casualties from going door to door and traget the insurgents alongside of civilains through an extensive air campaign. Perhaps, we are operating on intelligence that has limited the number of civilain casualties. Perhaps we even use technology that limits the numbers of civilians killed also. But, lets go back to Sailors question: "What ratio of civilian to Taliban deaths is unacceptable?" How can you justify the killing of any civilian? I cannot. I don't hold them accountable for being in the same house. Women and children. Surely, you are not that callous. So, what is an acceptable ratio. Or, how about this question in relation to falluja. How many civilains killed are acceptable to save one US soldier?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#110)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    RA- Smoke bombs? How utterly dishonest of you. Obviously you are a propaganda pusher. Google WP and then tell us what you find. It burns to the bone. You guys will say anything and repeat repeat reapeat. Still is will never be true.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#111)
    by Sailor on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    point was that you claimed how they all went door to door, and instead we showed proof that the stood off and used WP and HE. and how about this, does it really seem like they tried to cut down on casualties:
    It was well-known that the Falluja facility was a health center operating as a small hospital, a protected institution under international law. According to James Ross of Human Rights Watch, "the onus would be on the US government to demonstrate that the hospital was being used for military purposes and that its response was proportionate. Even if there were snipers there, it would never justify destroying a hospital."
    Deny that we are committing war crimes all you want, but the reality is we are.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#112)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    Peaches. Fair questions. One of the left's tactics is to accuse people who point out something unpleasant of favoring it. Just because I say it's raining doesn't mean I hate the sun. I don't justify the killing of civilians in any sense except to say that it happens in war and if you get involved in a war, you need to know it in advance and be willing to accept it--which is not the same as justifying it. You also need to be aware that you have the moral duty to do everything you can to avoid killing civilians, except you are not morally required to lose the war to protect civilians. That would be nuts on the face of it, and would, as I said earlier, be awarding the victory to the folks who think hiding among civilians is a good idea--which is almost everybody we've ever fought, and US lefties. That means you choose who gets to be in charge based on picking the worst guys. Because you know they'd kill civilians without compunction, without restriction, and without investigation afterwards. In fact, the lefties' freedom fighter heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan deliberately target civilians as a tactic designed to start civil conflict which will result in the deaths of even more civilians. You will note the outrage emanating from the left over this???? The acceptable number is the least possible while winning the war. Would I justify? Here's a story from my father. After getting back from killing Germans in Europe, he called on the parents of a high school friend and college roommate who had been killed late in the Pacific war. "Oh," cried his mother, "if only we'd had the atomic bomb sooner, Arthur would be here with us today." So whether we justify something, or agree with something, sometimes depends on an emotional connection to the thing, such as a rifleman son who's facing an attack not properly prepared by heavy fires due to the possibility civilians are there. What do you think the mother in question would have justified? Civilians per dead US soldier? I was once an Infantry officer. I was probably a bit too uncallous. Had I been in a position to make a decision, I would have called in all the fire in the world, no matter who the bad guys were hiding among, to insure that my people were not shot at even by one person when we headed toward the objective. I'd make the place look like a gravel quarry and not care who or how many were pureed into the dust. If I were as hard-nosed as an officer should be, I might, depending on the situation, withhold preparatory fires, accept casualties among the guys I led (Field Marshall Montgomery said of the three best commands to have, the best was the platoon, in which an officer could know and love his men more than their mothers did)whose lives were in my hands. I would do so knowing that letting some of my guys get killed unnecessarily--in the limited focus--actually served the greater objective. Or, as a compromise, my commanders, farther from the scene, would prevent my use of more prep fires than they thought useful. So I wouldn't have to decide. This happened frequently in Viet Nam. Those who absolutely refuse to do anything which might endanger civilians give the enemy an insurmountable advantage. In one case in Viet Nam, we quit blowing up tunnels because the enemy took civilians down there. So we used tear gas to chase everybody out and separate them. The left hated that. It deprived them of dead civilians and let the Americans clear tunnels efficiently. They wanted more dead civilians and didn't want the US to clear tunnels efficiently. So they cried about "chemical warfare." Now, as it happens, tear gas really is illegal, although shooting somebody full of holes isn't (go figure). but the threat to the lefties was civilians who weren't getting killed. You will note on this thread an absolute lack of interest in condemning those who choose to fight from among civilians, despite its being illegal, and the primary cause of their danger. Gives you an idea of just exactly how serious is the protestation of grief for dead civilians. Fake from the get-go.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#113)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:30:56 PM EST
    Squeaky. WP burns. It is used to make smoke. It flushes people out into the open where HE can kill them. It is nasty. But if it were as bad as HE, we wouldn't be using HE, would we? I didn't say we didn't use arty. I said we didn't bomb the place level and instead sent in grunts. They had the backing of artillery, which, were you a grunt, you'd want. And we had US casualties which would not have happened had we bombed the place flat. Let's take your subject-changing further: No artillery prep. No bombs. Not even any tanks. Just rifles. Civilian gets shot by a round meant for a terrorist. You howl in fake outrage. This is not a matter of logic, or even decency. You need dead civilians and will have them one way or another. And you will pretend our efforts to minimize civilian casualties don't exist. It's not that you are ignorant. It's that the rest of the citizenry of the US isn't either. That's why,as I keep saying, nobody believes you any more than you do. Difference between normal people and your political clones is that the rest of us don't pretend to believe you, and each other.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#114)
    by Dadler on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    BB, 'Tis sad and frightening you don't actually know that we have a civilian controlled military. As for lies told by the military to its soldiers, sigh, let me see: that Iraq (where my brother first was) was about 9/11, no wait it's about WMD, no wait now it's about spreading democracy by invading with not a clue how to do the REAL job after bullsh*t "mission accomplished", it's about how we'd be welcomed with flowers, and all other hairy fairy b.s. about defending America from terrorists, when it was inevitably going to be about civil war, ethnic divisions, chaos... As for Afghanistan (where bro is serving now), lemme see: we'll get him dead or alive, we'll bring democracy to the country, free the women, and all with what is obviously inadequate manpower and financing, but that's okay because you'll be soon forgotten by the bigger Iraq stiffy Bush has MORE time to f-up. Don't give me kindergarten snipes. Every f*ucking soldier knows what they COULD face, but they take their cues from their leaders, and when the g*ddamn President and his cowardly crew are spinning incompetent b.s. and outright lies, painting utterly unrealistic pictures of what they will face, of how glorious it is to defend America like this, well, when do YOU think that kind of horsesh*t from THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF reaches the point of being COUNTERproductive? Much less how demonstrably disastrous was the failed war/post-war plan that followed from such retarded executive minds, and because of which much suffering continues.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#115)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:34:25 PM EST
    If you folks are making the point that dead civilians make illegitimate the military efforts of a force, then what do you think of the deliberate killing of civilians by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan? If the school the US bombed in Afghanistan recently is a factor in the moral justification of the war, how about car bombs of the Taliban or the terrorists in Iraq which kill civilians. How does that affect your view of the moral justification of their efforts?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#116)
    by Dadler on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:39:38 PM EST
    Richard, Believe it or not, for the umpteenth time, and this is not a difficult concept to grasp by any means, it IS possible to both abhor the way the WOT continues to be waged AND abhor terrorist car bombings. If you think they cancel each other out and free you from any difficult and critical analysis of the WOT and bombings like these, then bully for you and enjoy. NEXT!!!

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#117)
    by Dadler on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    Richard, Let me put it more simply: It is my opinion that events like these do INFINITELY more harm to our efforts that help, no matter how man Taliban are killed. When entire innocent families are wiped out by US, by those who always claim to be better than the bad guys, and when it happens over and over, whatever is gained by killing whatever puny number of overall Taliban...IT DOESN'T COME CLOSE TO THE HARM IT DOES TO US, to the added mistrust and hatred it brings. The Taliban are KNOWN for being brutal, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER, and much more often than we are. Whatever, I don't think that was more simple, but have a good one.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#118)
    by soccerdad on Wed May 24, 2006 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    Richard -The argument is that in such a war its just plain counter productive. Any policy or set of ROE should not end up making more insurgents than you kill.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    WP is banned by the Geneva Convention Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons. link The US failed to ratify that protocol unlike most of the civilized world. Even though WP is not classified as an chemical weapon most think it should be. It remains burning until it is fully oxidized. When it comes in contact with humans is burns to the bone. It also burns the lungs. Juan Cole, who comes from a military family, treads lightly on the subject. But comes down on the side of most sensible people. Incendiary weapons should not be used where there are civilians present and the US should sign the protocol banning the use of incendiary bombs. Cole His point regarding the illegality of WP is that that is false and trumped up by the anti-war movement.
    "The US military is puzzled about the outcry over the use of white phosphorus at Fallujah. After all, a 500-pound bomb is also destructive. My guess? You can't go to war against Saddam on the grounds that he has stockpiles of chemical weapons, and then turn around and use incendiary bombs of a sort that much of the world regards as a form of chemical weapon. It is the hypocrisy factor. Not to mention that the international community is trying to get such weapons banned."... This is a public relations issue, not an issue of war crimes, as Monbiot and many others apparently want to have it.
    Juan Cole As regards the enemy hiding amongst Iraqi civilians: Why we are in Iraq killing anyone period, civilians or Iraqi resistance?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#120)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:03:46 PM EST
    If we make insurgets by killing civilians, it would follow that the insurgents make more government forces by the civilians they kill. Or the government forces they kill. All in all, considering the numbers fo civilians both sides kill, we're creating fewer enemies than they are. The Allies killed a number of civilians in Occupied Europe, made many of their families angry. We still won. ROE which guarantee not to kill civilians guarantee to lose the war because the inviolability of human shields is...inviolable.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#121)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:08:42 PM EST
    Squeaky. If you have to ask, you're not worth talking to. What ought to be done regard WP is something to talk about but in US law, it's legal. In addition, to overcome the lack of WP, something else would have to be used, which might be worse. Maybe instead of trying to clear a bunker with a WP grenade, so as to shoot the guys as they run out, we have to arrange to put a 500 lb bomb on top of it. The subject, anyway, is Afghanistan. I know you guys hate mass murder by carbomb and suicide bomb of civilians. It's practically all you ever talk about. If I had a buck for every time you insist that it means the terrorists in Iraq are completely unjustified, immoral and don't deserve to win, I'd be a millionaire. I put my mouse on turboboost to scroll past all the stuff you say about it. Sure.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#122)
    by Peaches on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    You will note on this thread an absolute lack of interest in condemning those who choose to fight from among civilians, despite its being illegal, and the primary cause of their danger.
    Richard, let me start by condemning those who would choose to fight among civilains. Let me especially condemn those terrorists who would target civilains to aciave their objectives. Let me fully admit I am your fellow American and a leftie. Why you hate me so, I do not know. I despise that someone gave you an order that ever required you to put yourself and others in danger for your lives. I don't despise you at all for being thier. I have been having a discussion similar to this with bb on another thread. First, we have to acknowledge the futility of our enemies in Viet Nam and now in Iraq, to face us on the battlefield. Evolution dictates that this strategy will be eliminated immediately due to our military superiority, not to cowardice. A strategy for fighting a superior rival will multiply. Thus, our rivals hide among civilains to protect their own interests and survival. I am not condoning it, just explaining it.
    If I were as hard-nosed as an officer should be, I might, depending on the situation, withhold preparatory fires, accept casualties among the guys I led (Field Marshall Montgomery said of the three best commands to have, the best was the platoon, in which an officer could know and love his men more than their mothers did)whose lives were in my hands. I would do so knowing that letting some of my guys get killed unnecessarily--in the limited focus--actually served the greater objective.
    One thing the US has not have to do since the revolutionary War was fight an occupying force on our own land. We have been lucky to have never been successfully invaded by a conquering force. But, using your experience as an officer, you should have some understanding for your enemy who is fighting a occupying force. They also want to do everything they can to be sure they actually served the greater objective. They were and are soldiers just like you (if you really were). As far as the terrorist that choose to kill civilains to achieve their objective I can withhold no contempt. However, I believe, in some cases the fact that they cannot fight us conventianally due to being militarily inferior reduces them to these abhorent tactics to be sure they actually served the greater objective whatever that may be in their eyes.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    Squeaky. If you have to ask, you're not worth talking to.
    I am honored.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#124)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    Peaches. Although on orders for Viet Nam, I did not go. My brother, an Air Force navigator, was killed elsewhere, making me a sole surviving son. One per family was the rule. I know why the terrorists hide behind civilians. It's to provide dead civilians for the use of the left. Secondarily, it tends to protect them, although with better-trained grunts, tighter ROE, and more discriminating weapons, that is less the case than it otherwise may be. The primary goal is to provide you guys with talking points, i.e. dead civilians. Now, if you weren't so happy to get them--this thread just fizzed with enthusiasm--they wouldn't be so valuable and the terrorists' manual wouldn't emphasize getting civilians killed for propaganda purposes. I would point out that your acknowledgement that the terrorists think they're shielded from US forces by hiding among civilians and that means they think more of US forces' morality than you do. Before the invasion of Iraq, human shields went to Iraq to defend hospitals and orphanages and suchlike. The Iraqi government knew that orphanages already had human shields--orphans--and would not be struck. Hence, they asked the shields to defend military facilities. The human shields, knowing they'd be safe in their posing by defending the already shielded orphanages, etc, and not when standing in front of barracks, went home. They knew the US was considerably more moral than they pretended. In fact, they were depending on it for their lives. No need to despise the generals who would have put me in that position. It's every general who ever had Rules of Engagement required of him. And that's every general since, at least, Viet Nam. One might make the point that it was earlier, but it would be strategic instead of tactical. We have been spending soldiers' lives in pursuit of restrictions on our heavy firepower. And, yes, the terrorists are getting civilians killed in pursuit of their greater objective. That leaves us to determine whose objective is more just. I vote for us.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#125)
    by Sailor on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:41:20 PM EST
    it is against the GenCons to deliberately kill civilians to get at insurgents. It's a war crime. Like preemtively attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, WMDs or any ability to harm us.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#126)
    by Peaches on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:45:31 PM EST
    Peaches. Although on orders for Viet Nam, I did not go. My brother, an Air Force navigator, was killed elsewhere, making me a sole surviving son. One per family was the rule.
    That's what I thought. From Chris Hedges interview talking about his dad
    During a Fourth of July parade in the farm town where I grew up he turned to me as the paunchy veterans walked past and said acidly, "Always remember, most of those guys were fixing the trucks in the rear." He hated the VFW hall where these men went, mostly to drink. He found their periodic attempts to re-create the comradeship of war, something that of course could never be re-created, pathetic and sad.
    You know nothing about combat. You come here to continue the myth and the glorification of war. You know nothing about your comrades. You do everyone, and especailly combat vets, a deservice speaking about your support for them and what they are doing over there. They no more want to have to kill a civilian than lefties want them to. But from your seat in the arena you pretend to understand the agony they go through. You should be ashamed. For your brother--you should be ashamed.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    The Left wants dead civilians. Of course thats perfectly in keeping with its almost uniform opposition to the war from the beginning and Mr. "Everybody Knows" (everybody in the 30%), unquestioning devotion from the beginning to this debacle-of-unintended-consequences. And up is down, black is white.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:56:26 PM EST
    Yes it is always of interest that some of the biggest apologist for war crimes are chickenhawks. Abstract thinking by self proclaimed experts creates very dangerous and unsafe situations in most if not all fields. Our Heck of a job WH is a good example.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#129)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 01:58:14 PM EST
    Peaches. Some things can be understood without going through them. You might also want to think about the veterans who support the war in Iraq, including those with one or two tours who have re-enlisted. So the "didn't go" meme is useless. I didn't explain the conundrum of whether to call for heavy fires in prep for an assault to make myself look good, or agonized. I said it because I was asked if I justified the use of such tactics. In that situation, I might have. That was my point, the same as my father's friend's mother would certainly have justified the use of the A-bomb. "Thank God for the atom bomb," said my grandmother, "now I have you all home safe at last." My father and his two brothers would have been in the invasion of the home islands. So one justification has to do with the emotional connection. Do lefties hate war? Or only those the US might win? I believe it's the latter. And dead civilians are useful in their political efforts. Nobody wants to kill civilians. The question is whether, when the US does it by accident, that proves the US cause is totally unjustified. And when the bad guys do it,it's okay. Based on relative responses, that's the way it is. None of what I said requires me to have been in combat. Or, if it does, it requires you to have been in combat, as well. Otherwise, you know nothing.

    aubrey, when the taliban attacks americans and civilians are killed, are we hiding among and using civilians for shields?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#131)
    by HK on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:09:32 PM EST
    If the school the US bombed in Afghanistan recently is a factor in the moral justification of the war, how about car bombs of the Taliban or the terrorists in Iraq which kill civilians. How does that affect your view of the moral justification of their efforts?
    This argument is identical to the one in which people state that ther eshould be a death penalty for murderers because they showed no regard for their victims. And if they stabbed their victims to death then we should not worry about possible pain from lethal injection because it is better than they deserve. Trouble is, this tit-for-tat thing does not work. When my children come to me and one says 'She took my toy' and the other says 'But she wouldn't give me a go' I answer that we must all look at our behaviour. Simply saying 'they did a bad thing' is not good enough. What is best? How should we all behave? What benefits us all? Richard, it is difficult if not impossible to weigh moral issues one against the other. It is bad when terrorists kill innocent people. I don't think anyone here has denied that. But it is also bad when allied military forces kill innocent people. If a war has honourable intentions then those who fight it must use honourable means otherwise it is meaningless.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 02:49:21 PM EST
    Slightly OT Here is a take from an ex-marine speaking about Iraq:
    I loathe the people who have created this monstrosity.... These bastards and their apologists should be stripped naked and forced to walk the main streets of America, allowing every city and town that has lost a loved one to injury or death in this shameful catastrophe to heap on them the scorn they deserve.
    Worth a read. It is short. Mike Farrel from MASH discussing Baghdad ER crooks and liars

    great article squeaky, the bad thing is that if that happened you'd have to see ann coulter, bill o'reilly, hannity, rush limbaugh and other loathsome creatures naked.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#134)
    by jondee on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:02:29 PM EST
    Maybe "Lefties hate" the wars started by "Righties" (a faction in the U.S, not "The U.S") because they strongly suspect that the Righties primary motivation is using the war as a way to consolidate their political power and serving the interests of those who bankrolled their ascendency. That ever occur to you Richard?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:03:05 PM EST
    bigunit12-We could sling mud pies as they pass. One for every life taken. That would make the sight of their rotten flesh more palatable.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#136)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    Geez. An hour off and look what happens. In no particular order, no, we are not hiding behind civilians. That's a deliberate act, a tactic. That civilians might be around is a different issue. If they are, I would suppose honorable terrorists would refrain, in case any got killed. There is a difference between deliberately killing civilians for the effect and accidentally killing them despite efforts not to. You guys claim to be against both but only mention the latter. I would think that lawyers, for whom intent figures in criminal cases, might look more carefully at that. If the latter dishonors an effort, does not the former? Not on this thread. I have mentioned more than once the complete and utter lack of interest until somebody like me gets your rhetorical wrist between your shoulder blades and forces a mention, if not discussion. This started with twenty dead civilians accidentally killed by US forces. Your buddies in Baghdad do that before breakfast, on purpose, and gloat. You may not see the difference, but everybody else does. You may not see what you look like, but everybody else does. Peaches. If "being there" is necessary, you don't get to talk. You want the US to operate so that no civilians will ever get killed, knowing it will get more US soldiers killed. Don't you have to be a soldier facing that death to have the right to speak? Or the parent of one? Or the bereaved parent of one? Otherwise, you have no justification for an opinion. So drop it. HK. It is not identical. The terrorists kill civilians on purpose. It's not tit-for-tat there,and it's not on this thread. They are two quite different issues and the equivalence you make between them is telling. We won WW II with methods--see Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, and the nuclear two, plus any number of others--which do not seem to many today to be honorable. Is the war then meaningless? Who won? I think we did, and that has more than meaningless results.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#137)
    by Dadler on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    Richard Aubrey, We ARE making more insurgents in that area. Funny how when you INVADE A COUNTRY and then DON'T HAVE JOBS FOR THE POPULACE they sometimes take what they can get, even if to us it seems unimaginable. And WHAT government are you talking about there? The one in name only, that is not capable of providing security? And enough with WWII. Afghanistan didn't invade us, Iraq didn't invade us, Iran didn't invade us, and on and on. The analogy don't fit.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    Lets see, we invade a country knowing full well that thousands of civilians are going to be killed and maimed, but we, unlike "the terrorists", dont do it "deliberately". Why? Because Richard says so and if you disagree that just means you hate America. Nice try pal, no sale.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#139)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:44:56 PM EST
    Dad. To repeat, if killing civilians makes enemies, the terrorists are making more enemies than we are. The question of who invaded whom does not apply to the question of who won a particular war. After all, we invaded Germany, who had never invaded us. Or for that matter, hardly hurt us at all. Japan hit us at Pearl Harbor and a year later we invaded North Africa to fight Germans. You guys see a problem with that? Point is, you can reduce the focus of any question to the point of being meaningless. We killed lots of civilians on the way to winning WW II and we won WW II. Those are facts. What it means is that the fact of dead civilians does not mean you automatically lose the war. The Afghan government is trying to provide security but is being hindered by the murderers called Taliban. It's funny to see so-called humanitarian folks proclaiming the legitimacy of force majeure. There are any number of governments who failed because they got beat. Doesn't mean they weren't legitimate in the eyes of their people. You will recall the Symbionese Liberation Army kept California hopping for some time. And there were only about a dozen of them. Does that mean California didn't have a legitimate government? It doesn't take many people to put a society on the edge. That it can be put on edge does not mean it's illegitimate, just that mass murder has an effect out of proportion to the number of practitioners. Anyway, your failure to apply your so-called morality to the Taliban and the Iraqi terrorists means that your arguments heretofore are based on the lie that you really care about dead civilians. The difference in your attention shows that you really care about dead civilians as long as they're politically useful. Period.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#140)
    by desertswine on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    Mike Farrel from MASH discussing Baghdad ER
    Nice article Squeaky. Here's the quote by JFK Farrell was referring to.
    The United States, as the world knows,will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough... more than enough... of war and hate and opression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on... not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.
    - JFK

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:50:15 PM EST
    My question is, would the hard core Lefties of the WWII era, most of whom were more organized and more classically "Leftie" than the Left of today, who put their a*ses on the line in the war the same as everyone else, support this union busting, ruling class tool and his foreign adventures? I seriously doubt it.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 03:53:45 PM EST
    desertswine-thanks for the quote. Another era for sure. So much for progress.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#143)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:03:23 PM EST
    Jondee. Of course not. Unless ordered. You'll recall the hardcore lefties hated the Nazis on account of they were making the commies' job of subversion in Germany difficult. So Moscow's tame talkers around the world insisted we all resist Nazism. Then came the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, clearing Hitler's eastern border and providing him with raw materials. Suddenly, the Moscow talkers were all buddy with the Nazis. Stay out of the bosses' war. Then the Germans invaded Russia. The Moscow talkers insisted on fighting the Germans immediately. Funny thing was, they always couched it as being in the interest of whatever country they were in. It was right for (Britain), (France) (America), (Italy), right for their interests. Right to do two neck-snapping one-eighties. Some more reasonable people who had been dumb enough to believe the commies sincerely figured out, talking to their chiropractors, no doubt, that there was less sincerity in the commies' position--whatever it was this morning--than had been advertised. And they quit. The hardcore guys remained and would put their asses on the line according to the Message from Moscow. Whichever way it went.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#144)
    by Sailor on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:06:45 PM EST
    Ahh folks just give it up, we had to destroy that village to save it.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:20:16 PM EST
    Richard - Im sure that everyone on the American Left who fought in WWII will be pleased to hear that they should turn in any decorations and commendations they might have earned TO YOU once those traitors find out that you're finally on to them. Who did they think they were foolin anyway? Pinko commies, all of 'em.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:43:50 PM EST
    Obviously the best thing would be for all of us to just go watch The Longest Day, Patton, and maybe a little Spotting Reds in the Workplace. That'll teach us anything we need to know about Iraq, Afghanistan and any other wars Richards massa wants to get us into.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#147)
    by Dadler on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    R.A., Points made by both of us, none taken by either side. Have a good one and I hope neither of us falls into the giant chasm separating our views of things. Peace.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#148)
    by Dadler on Wed May 24, 2006 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    Last Add R.A., Why did we support the Taliban when we KNEW what they were doing to their own people? And what does that say about us?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#149)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    Why do we support the MEK in Northern Iraq now? One of Daniel Pipes favorite groups. A bewildered intelligence official complains
    "These guys are nuts," this intelligence source said. "Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them."
    tricky huh. kinda like instant declassification. Who said magic is dead? Morals and ethics are not part of the discussion.

    Once again I remind Dick Aubrey that WWII is a bad analogy...unless Bush is playing the part of Hitler, Tojo or Mussolini. If you want a MUCH better analogy go with Vietnam...or the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Good questions Dadler and Squeaky... Well Dick, what did you think of our support for Bin Laden back in the 1980s? And of the death squads created by Mr. Negroponte in Central America and now, Iraq? Democracy by death squad...there ya go Dick, try and spin that. As for "Democracy" isn't it funny how finding Bin Laden (the original reason for invading Afghanistan) has now morphed into "Defending Democracy"? Can you say "Mission Creep", Dick? I knew you could!

    Nice spin rogan except for the part where 58,000 american GIs and perhaps 2 million Vietnamese died in that debacle, and the part where our actions paved the way for Pol Pot.
    Between 1969 and 1973, U.S. bombers killed perhaps three-quarters of a million Cambodian peasants in an attempt to destroy North Vietnamese supply bases, many of which did not exist. During one six-month period in 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodians, living mostly in straw huts, than were dropped on Japan during all of World War II, the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. Evidence from U.S. official documents, declassified in 1987, leaves no doubt that this U.S. terror was critical in Pol Pot's drive for power.
    Who knows how many future Pol Pots/Bin Ladens we are paving the way for in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such is the legacy of our empire building...past, present and future.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#152)
    by squeaky on Wed May 24, 2006 at 08:01:59 PM EST
    Who knows how many future Pol Pots/Bin Ladens we are paving the way for in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Funny the justification is that we are preventing so many future Pol Pots/Bin Ladens by killing all of the bad guys. ironic

    So the Russians should never have left Afghanistan?

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#154)
    by HK on Thu May 25, 2006 at 02:24:17 AM EST
    Mr. Aubrey, you seem to miss the point I'm making. Let me simplify. We all ~ individuals and nations alike ~ need to be accountable for our actions and it is not always acceptible to use someone elses actions to justify our own. As far as Peaches needing to be there to be able to speak on the issue, I have news for you; there are no qualifications for free speech. Peaches put forward a valid point which indicated gaps in your knowledge and understanding. He does not need first hand knowledge to do that. It is perhaps a shame that the right to free speech extends to those who have little or no knowledge or experience of a subject. Still, good news for you.

    Re: U.S. Warplanes Bomb Afghan Religious School (none / 0) (#155)
    by Peaches on Thu May 25, 2006 at 06:25:33 AM EST
    Peaches. If "being there" is necessary, you don't get to talk. You want the US to operate so that no civilians will ever get killed, knowing it will get more US soldiers killed. Don't you have to be a soldier facing that death to have the right to speak? Or the parent of one? Or the bereaved parent of one? Otherwise, you have no justification for an opinion. So drop it.
    ROTFLMFAO, RA, I did drop it. After you confirmed my suspicians of misrepresenting yourself as a combat "infantry officer" I realized I had nothing further to learn from you and you were full of SH%$. We had nothing more to talk about so I didn't respond to your: May 24, 2006 02:58 PM comment. You have very little credibility on what soldiers go through and your grasp of history is seriously tainted. So, just keep Pissin' into the wind...