4 ms·

Depends on how you frame the military violence. On the ground level there may be no intention of causing harm to individual civilians. On the much larger execut

Depends on how you frame the military violence. On the ground level there may be no intention of causing harm to individual civilians. On the much larger executive level it's about shock and awe, to beat the population into capitulation. That's exactly the aim of this sort of violence. Shock and awe. To this individual, this was shock and awe in service of his political objectives. It's violence with political aims. Violence with political aims is ultimately a policing matter. You use better policing to snuff it out. Military interfering in the affairs of other nations for political objectives is inexcusable and should be deplored just as this is.

nradov 8y ago
Shock and awe ended after the initial invasion. Current military leaders are perfectly well aware that it's impossible to beat the population into capitulation. Collateral damage is usually caused by incompetence, violations of the rules of engagement, or a brutal calculation that some non-combatant deaths are an acceptable price to take out a legitimate target.
- mirimir 8y ago
  > acceptable price to take out a legitimate target. No targets are legitimate for you, when you're the invader. You're the only legitimate target.
  - saiya-jin 8y ago
    It sounds rough, and its something US citizens will probably never swallow or accept, but in both Iraq and Afghanistan US is a pure force of evil as time showed. Simple fact - the country and its citizens would be statistically far better under horrible Taliban/Saddam rule rather than under very unstable and increasingly marginal US rule. Taliban would not kill the amounts caused by these invasions in 100 years, and children for example wouldn't be affected. As for Iraq, Saddam would be a blessing compared to hell this country went through in last 15 years since Bush jr. decided to please some powerful people behind Rumsfeld and Cheney. US lost both wars, beaten by poor guys with AKs, IEDs and suicide bombers. Iraq is more complicated because its semi-functional but Afghanistan is lost cause even according to US military.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Indeed. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US initially supported agents who were enemies of its enemies. But then those agents became enemies. And innocent people suffered and died, all for power games. In Afghanistan, the US initially supported the Taliban against the Soviets. Just like in Vietnam. And then the CIA trained Osama and al-Qaeda, with financial support from the Saudis. But once the Soviets were gone, the downsides of the Taliban and al-Qaeda became evident. Oppression of women. International operations. So the US invaded. In Iraq, the US initially supported Saddam, because he was tough on Communists, and not overtly Islamic. Like those nice Turks. Except that he was rather fascist, but hey. And then they supported him against Iran, which had thrown off US domination (i.e., the Shah) and frightened allies (Israelis and Saudis). But then he pissed off the Saudis, and started talking too much about international operations. So the US kicked them out of Kuwait, starved them and sporadically bombed them for a few years, and finally invaded. What a mess.
      - nradov 8y ago
        There is no evidence that US forces ever directly trained Osama bin Laden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden#Opposing_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_...
        mirimir 8y ago
        That's not surprising. I mean, the CIA admittedly destroyed records about torture in Iraq.
tomjen3 8y ago
One thing is an attack that will result in some civilian deads, by an organization that has spent ungodly sums to make their bombs as accurate as possible, to develop the best technology and whoes EOD guys now have/had to dispose suicide bombers after ISIS figured out that you can attach them to children and force them to run at the US forces. The other is an absolutely looser who spent time figuring out how to kill the most civilians, the most effectively while self-grandising online. I have my reservation about the US military and its proper use, but there is no world where the two are comparable.

nradov 8y ago

Shock and awe ended after the initial invasion. Current military leaders are perfectly well aware that it's impossible to beat the population into capitulation. Collateral damage is usually caused by incompetence, violations of the rules of engagement, or a brutal calculation that some non-combatant deaths are an acceptable price to take out a legitimate target.

mirimir 8y ago
> acceptable price to take out a legitimate target. No targets are legitimate for you, when you're the invader. You're the only legitimate target.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  It sounds rough, and its something US citizens will probably never swallow or accept, but in both Iraq and Afghanistan US is a pure force of evil as time showed. Simple fact - the country and its citizens would be statistically far better under horrible Taliban/Saddam rule rather than under very unstable and increasingly marginal US rule. Taliban would not kill the amounts caused by these invasions in 100 years, and children for example wouldn't be affected. As for Iraq, Saddam would be a blessing compared to hell this country went through in last 15 years since Bush jr. decided to please some powerful people behind Rumsfeld and Cheney. US lost both wars, beaten by poor guys with AKs, IEDs and suicide bombers. Iraq is more complicated because its semi-functional but Afghanistan is lost cause even according to US military.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Indeed. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US initially supported agents who were enemies of its enemies. But then those agents became enemies. And innocent people suffered and died, all for power games. In Afghanistan, the US initially supported the Taliban against the Soviets. Just like in Vietnam. And then the CIA trained Osama and al-Qaeda, with financial support from the Saudis. But once the Soviets were gone, the downsides of the Taliban and al-Qaeda became evident. Oppression of women. International operations. So the US invaded. In Iraq, the US initially supported Saddam, because he was tough on Communists, and not overtly Islamic. Like those nice Turks. Except that he was rather fascist, but hey. And then they supported him against Iran, which had thrown off US domination (i.e., the Shah) and frightened allies (Israelis and Saudis). But then he pissed off the Saudis, and started talking too much about international operations. So the US kicked them out of Kuwait, starved them and sporadically bombed them for a few years, and finally invaded. What a mess.
    - nradov 8y ago
      There is no evidence that US forces ever directly trained Osama bin Laden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden#Opposing_view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_...
      - mirimir 8y ago
        That's not surprising. I mean, the CIA admittedly destroyed records about torture in Iraq.

tomjen3 8y ago

One thing is an attack that will result in some civilian deads, by an organization that has spent ungodly sums to make their bombs as accurate as possible, to develop the best technology and whoes EOD guys now have/had to dispose suicide bombers after ISIS figured out that you can attach them to children and force them to run at the US forces. The other is an absolutely looser who spent time figuring out how to kill the most civilians, the most effectively while self-grandising online. I have my reservation about the US military and its proper use, but there is no world where the two are comparable.