4 ms·

Nestled in between "malice" and "honest mistake" is "criminal negligence". When you put yourself in that position - when you invade a country - every resulting

by dTal 5y ago

Nestled in between "malice" and "honest mistake" is "criminal negligence". When you put yourself in that position - when you invade a country - every resulting civilian casualty is on you. You do not have the moral standing to decide what is and is not acceptable "collateral damage". War is hell, but you chose to make war there. The civilians didn't. >the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009 Or to phrase it another way, allied forces killed a third as many civilians as the actual Taliban, a regime noted for its extreme brutality and callous attitude to human life. I'm not impressed.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
> to phrase it another way, allied forces killed a third as many civilians as the actual Taliban > According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011. Interesting. How do you get one third out of those numbers?
- CapricornNoble 5y ago
  >>>How do you get one third out of those numbers? 25% / 75% = 1/3.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Strange phrasing. Sounds worse than: America and its allies were responsible for 20-25% of civilian casualties. The UN doesn't use that phrasing.
Taylor_OD 5y ago
And every time we slaughtered a family in the middle east over the last 20+ years we've given a man or a son or an uncle with no remaining family a reason to hate the US and to revolt against it. There are almost certainly more Taliban and other terrorist group members who have a legitimate reason to dislike the US than there were 20 years ago.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Source please.
    - leesalminen 5y ago
      Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth.
      - tablespoon 5y ago
        >>> The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked. >> Source please. > Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth. If that's "plain old common sense," so is QAnon. In reality they're both conspiracy theory lies that have the psychological advantage of making the world comic-book simple for their adherents.
        leesalminen 5y ago
        Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”. If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem. It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.

by dTal 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago

> to phrase it another way, allied forces killed a third as many civilians as the actual Taliban > According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011. Interesting. How do you get one third out of those numbers?

CapricornNoble 5y ago
>>>How do you get one third out of those numbers? 25% / 75% = 1/3.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Strange phrasing. Sounds worse than: America and its allies were responsible for 20-25% of civilian casualties. The UN doesn't use that phrasing.

Taylor_OD 5y ago

And every time we slaughtered a family in the middle east over the last 20+ years we've given a man or a son or an uncle with no remaining family a reason to hate the US and to revolt against it. There are almost certainly more Taliban and other terrorist group members who have a legitimate reason to dislike the US than there were 20 years ago.

voakbasda 5y ago
The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Source please.
  - leesalminen 5y ago
    Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      >>> The “war on terror” was not meant to stop terrorism. It was meant to fan the flames and give the US an endless war that can be fought for generations. And it worked. >> Source please. > Seems like plain old common sense to me. You’re never going to hear the US government say it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. It’s just an inconvenient truth. If that's "plain old common sense," so is QAnon. In reality they're both conspiracy theory lies that have the psychological advantage of making the world comic-book simple for their adherents.
      - leesalminen 5y ago
        Framed another way “plain old common sense” could be better worded as “using critical thinking to form an opinion about the root cause of a geopolitical clusterfuck”. If people who have an opinion that differs from “sources” is now a Qanon believer then we’re in for a very rocky road ahead. It’s almost like we’re only allowed to have same opinion as our overlords who own the “sources” we venerate. That’s a problem. It’s not much of a stretch to believe that defense contractors lobbied lawmakers to extend a war that made them so much money. Certainly not enough of a stretch to compare it to Qanon.