HuffPost: New CIvilian Deaths Roil Afghans

[Goldstein1984]

(AP) KABUL - Thousands of Afghans shouting "Death to America!" protested the killings of children Thursday, the latest in a string of controversial cases in which international forces have been blamed for civilian deaths.

U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal has ordered troops to use airstrikes judiciously and fire cautiously to reduce civilian casualties. Still, each new report of civilians killed unleashes raw emotions that highlight a growing impatience with coalition forces' inability to secure the nation.

There are fears the problem could get worse with 37,000 U.S. and NATO reinforcements already starting to stream into the country as part of a military buildup.

More civilians die at the hands of insurgents, yet any time innocent victims are killed, the Taliban wastes no time in blaming foreign troops.

"Every time the Taliban kills civilians, nothing happens. There is no protest. There is nothing," said Hroon Mir, an independent political analyst in Kabul. "But whenever there are civilian casualties from NATO or Afghan forces, then there is a reaction."

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/new-civilian-deaths-roil_n_416585.html

****************************

The article makes a valid point that, regardless of which source of data you use, the Taliban kills more Afghan civilians than occupying forces do.

On the other hand, more than 10,000 people die every year in the U.S. at the hands of drivers with a blood alcohol content above 0.8, and an estimated 45,000 people die every year in the U.S. for lack of a health care system that makes profit it's highest priority, and thousands more die every year at the hands of fellow citizens with firearms. But we still got really pissed off when al Qaeda came here and killed "only" 3,000 people.

NOTE ON EDIT: Let me make it clear that my point is that the fact that an occupying force is killing fewer Afghan civilians than the Taliban are killing while fighting against an illegitimate government propped up by an occupying force in no way justifies the killing. Thus, the hostile quotation marks around the word, "only."

[StarfarerBill]

1. More and more, acceptable losses are...acceptable,

be they working class Americans or dark-skinned foreigners; just don't upset the profit/consumerism train.

[Goldstein1984]

3. I'm doing everything I can to upset the profit/consumerism train

and encouraging others to do the same.

But I think the reason that we're spending as much on "defense" as the rest of the world combined and butting into the business of other people all over the planet is that the locusts have pretty must stripped the American economic landscape clean and are preparing to move on to greener fields.

The longer we wait to have an economic impact, the less of an economic impact we will have. The less money that can be squeezed out of Americans, the more people in other nations are going to die while we soften things up to make it safe for investment.

Don't think for a minute that our elites do not already have nice little mansions on hilltops and in gated communities set aside for escape should it become too dangerous for them here.

I fear we are already in checkmate.

[StarfarerBill]

6. But it's all part of the train, don't you know?

Capitalism, like any good parasite, is very adaptable and will move on to a new host when the old one is dying from its parasitism.

They'll keep sucking until there's nothing left on this planet, then move on to another one.

[patrice]

9. I fear you are right about those gated communities somewhere in the world, so the next task

becomes how chances of their inhabitants are improved by there being fewer people outside their gates AND by the ones inside the gate being of a completely homogeneous mindset, such as, say, X-ian.

[NJmaverick]

2. Can we kill you? After all that would be just one life and by your reasoning that would be pretty

OK

[Goldstein1984]

5. I'm not sure you understand my reasoning...

I was comparing our outrage at people who come from elsewhere and kill far fewer of us than we kill of ourselves, and the outrage of the Afghans at people coming from elsewhere and killing far fewer of them than they kill of themselves.

The point is that there are people who are going to imply that the civilian deaths caused by occupying forces are relatively okay in light of the larger number killed by the Taliban while fighting an illegitimate government propped up by those occupying forces.

Where did I overtly or by implication say that the loss of even one life is okay?

For the record: Life = Good and Death = Bad

[patrice]

4. The essence of "Pro-Life" is supposed to be that ONE innocent is too many. This counting

and bookkeeping Death is absolutely repulsive and anyone who justifies anything on the claim that the rebels in their own country are killing more than the invaders is just trying to say "Two Wrongs make a Right."

[Goldstein1984]

8. Absolutely. No question.

My comment in the OP was aimed at those who would downplay the significance of our murdering of innocent civilians by pointing out that the Taliban are killing more than we are.

I apologize for not making that more clear.

[patrice]

11. No, no . . . I got that from your OP and i was agreeing. It just burns the dickens out of me

that many of the jerks behind MIC, and by extension against HCR, are fucking liars about what their REAL values are.

Pro-Life? I'd like to meet a REAL Pro-Lifer, rather than just an anti-Women's Choicer, or an anti-Sex-er!

[Goldstein1984]

13. I was concerned that it wasn't clear enough

NJmaverick didn't understand my point.

I went back and added a note to clarify.

Thanks!

[patrice]

14. The logic of saying "2 or 1 Xs n deaths are worse than 1" is non-functional

I attempted to delineate how that logic doesn't work here http://journals.democraticunderground.com/patrice/3

[Goldstein1984]

15. I'm guessing that got unrecced to oblivion

There are obviously a few on DU that operate in a perpetually hostile mode. The hostility comes through clearly in every post. They also, obviously, consider themselves defenders of guardians of some noble truth, and their knee-jerk response is to shout "Troll!" or "Teabagger" or "Obama Hater!"--the DU equivalent of "Infidel!"

I try to just ignore them, unless I sense an opportunity to clarify, of if I think their post seriously threatens the integrity of a point I'm trying to make. In most cases, real discussion isn't even an option and it's a waste of time.

When I first started posting about a month ago, another DUer saw me getting unrecced into DU Hell, and a list of DUers appeared in a pm with a warning about them all. The list has proven not only accurate but useful while I decide whether a rebuttal is even worthwhile.

Overall, there are more positives on DU than negatives, and I post with the desire to have whatever I've written challenged by others.

Witnessing how unrecs are used the way a fascist might use kerosene and a match, I've resolved never to use an unrec, and also to rec any post that I think stimulates, or should have stimulated, a good discussion.

[Romulox]

7. When will enough people be killed to "settle the score" for 9/11?

ENOUGH. :eyes:

[Goldstein1984]

12. The score for 9/11 was settled long ago

This is about something else.

Notice the slick substitution of "vital national interests" for "defense" as a reason for the killing.

The economic locusts have pretty much stripped the landscape clean inside the U.S.

We're just softening up other areas to make them suitable for doing business.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Let's get out now.

The undie bomber (whoever sent him) proves we're not stopping them there, so let's get the fuck out.