4 ms·

>do not forget the >360 000 dead civilians the war on terror has cost so far. Most of them killed by the same people the US targeted. Funny how all responsibil

by yyyk 5y ago

>do not forget the >360 000 dead civilians the war on terror has cost so far. Most of them killed by the same people the US targeted. Funny how all responsibility is always given to the West even when the people doing the killing are their enemies. >the taliban back then only refused to hand over Bin Laden without evidence presented Also after he publicly confessed, not to mention his previous crimes. Their refusal had nothing to do with 'evidence'.

tyingq 5y ago
>Most of them killed by the same people the US targeted. That just sounds crazy given that our first retaliation for 9/11 was Iraq. Which had nothing to do with 9/11, and further...no "WMDs".
- yyyk 5y ago
  This doesn't remove responsibility from Al-Q's Iraqi associate - Al-Zarqawi - and his insane anti-everybody-who-isn't-Sunni-Muslim war which directly bred ISIS.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- adventured 5y ago
  > That just sounds crazy given that our first retaliation for 9/11 was Iraq. The first retaliation for 9/11 was not Iraq. That's a really bizarrely inaccurate claim. The US invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from control of the country by the end of 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom launched in October 2001. The Iraq invasion was 2003. The US initially sent its special forces into Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 to work with the Northern Alliance to route the Taliban and pursue bin Laden, and then invaded.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    Yes, sorry, not the first. Too late to edit, unfortunately.
maybelsyrup 5y ago
> Funny how all responsibility is always given to the West even when the people doing the killing are their enemies. It's barely ever given to the west, and never in major media. And when someone in an anonymous internet comment dares suggest we might be morally accountable for vast amounts of innocent deaths - a trifle of a blip of a nothing in the discourse - we can count on certain people getting their feewings hurt and becoming overly defensive. "I'm always being accused!" cried Tony Soprano. > No one knows with certainty how many people have been killed and wounded in Iraq since the 2003 United States invasion. However, we know that between 184,382 and 207,156 civilians have died from direct war related violence caused by the U.S., its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces from the time of the invasion through October 2019. [1] [1] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/ir...
- yyyk 5y ago
  >It's barely ever given to the west, and never in major media You must be kidding, or never ever read any major Western media. > And when someone in an anonymous internet comment dares Oh no. Someone disagreed with you on the internet. It's horrible even thinking about this. Nobody should ever be victimized like this.
  - herbst 5y ago
    Not sure what you mean with western media. But ours (Swiss) usually blames the NATO and US for their war crimes and not a generalized 'west'
- adventured 5y ago
  A trifle blip? Hardly. It was exhaustively covered by the largest media outlets in the US for more than a decade. It was a 24/7 talking point by everyone on the left politically from the day the US invaded Iraq until the day Bush left office. Across all forums, anywhere a comment could be posted. Google: "nytimes iraq death count" or "nytimes bush iraq civilian deaths"; or any number of dozens of variations on that same premise. You must have missed the endless media parade about the Bush death count, and deaths from drone strikes. The headlines and discussion were everywhere across social media, mainstream media, on blogs.
hutzlibu 5y ago
"Also after he publicly confessed, not to mention his previous crimes. Their refusal had nothing to do with 'evidence'. " Source? Bin Laden initially declined responsibility, saying his hosts the taliban, would not allow such a operation. (surely not out of being nice, but because of wanting to keep the power) And later (after he confessed) the US was on full war with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden not with them anymore.
- yyyk 5y ago
  >And later (after he confessed) the US was on full war with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden not with them anymore. I'm referring to that, not to his preinasvion evasion. The Taliban didn't even cut relations with him or his associates after he confessed, and they were not without influence in AfPak. Surely the Taliban should have been very upset with their 'guests' for getting them involved in Al-Qaeda's war, right? Unless the Taliban knew from the start... Obviously they did, since this wasn't Al-Qaeda's first attack against America. As I wrote, there's little reason to give any credence to their not knowing, and even if we did, there were plenty of other things they should have given up Bin Laden for.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "Surely the Taliban should have been very upset with their 'guests' for getting them involved in Al-Qaeda's war, right? " I am pretty sure, they were upset and maybe there were actual heads rolling behind the scenes. But on the outside, they had the US as common enemy. An enemy that hit them both as hard as he could, without making any difference. So of course at that time, talking about extradiction was over. But the Taliban while at power did made the civic offer to extradict Bin Laden, if presented with evidence. So of course, it is not sure, if they actually would have done it. Maybe they would have ended in a civic war by themself over it. But we never knew, because the US choose to go the brutal way. No evidence. No extradiction. Just war. Now 20 years later with the Taliban back in power and stronger than ever, I can just say, awesome outcome with this approach.
    - yyyk 5y ago
7952 5y ago
Given the ridiculously uncertain nature of war it seems reasonable to expect that we take responsibility for the unintended consequences of our actions. Our good intentions at the start are irrelevant. War introduces a lot of entropy into nations. It is the ultimate dice roll in terms of outcomes. You are taking a gamble. And history would suggest that civilians suffer hugely whatever the political outcome. If we know that then how can we shut our eyes to that effect?

by yyyk 5y ago

tyingq 5y ago

>Most of them killed by the same people the US targeted. That just sounds crazy given that our first retaliation for 9/11 was Iraq. Which had nothing to do with 9/11, and further...no "WMDs".

yyyk 5y ago
This doesn't remove responsibility from Al-Q's Iraqi associate - Al-Zarqawi - and his insane anti-everybody-who-isn't-Sunni-Muslim war which directly bred ISIS.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
adventured 5y ago
> That just sounds crazy given that our first retaliation for 9/11 was Iraq. The first retaliation for 9/11 was not Iraq. That's a really bizarrely inaccurate claim. The US invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from control of the country by the end of 2001. Operation Enduring Freedom launched in October 2001. The Iraq invasion was 2003. The US initially sent its special forces into Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 to work with the Northern Alliance to route the Taliban and pursue bin Laden, and then invaded.
- tyingq 5y ago
  Yes, sorry, not the first. Too late to edit, unfortunately.

maybelsyrup 5y ago

> Funny how all responsibility is always given to the West even when the people doing the killing are their enemies. It's barely ever given to the west, and never in major media. And when someone in an anonymous internet comment dares suggest we might be morally accountable for vast amounts of innocent deaths - a trifle of a blip of a nothing in the discourse - we can count on certain people getting their feewings hurt and becoming overly defensive. "I'm always being accused!" cried Tony Soprano. > No one knows with certainty how many people have been killed and wounded in Iraq since the 2003 United States invasion. However, we know that between 184,382 and 207,156 civilians have died from direct war related violence caused by the U.S., its allies, the Iraqi military and police, and opposition forces from the time of the invasion through October 2019. [1] [1] https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/ir...

yyyk 5y ago
>It's barely ever given to the west, and never in major media You must be kidding, or never ever read any major Western media. > And when someone in an anonymous internet comment dares Oh no. Someone disagreed with you on the internet. It's horrible even thinking about this. Nobody should ever be victimized like this.
- herbst 5y ago
  Not sure what you mean with western media. But ours (Swiss) usually blames the NATO and US for their war crimes and not a generalized 'west'
adventured 5y ago
A trifle blip? Hardly. It was exhaustively covered by the largest media outlets in the US for more than a decade. It was a 24/7 talking point by everyone on the left politically from the day the US invaded Iraq until the day Bush left office. Across all forums, anywhere a comment could be posted. Google: "nytimes iraq death count" or "nytimes bush iraq civilian deaths"; or any number of dozens of variations on that same premise. You must have missed the endless media parade about the Bush death count, and deaths from drone strikes. The headlines and discussion were everywhere across social media, mainstream media, on blogs.

hutzlibu 5y ago

"Also after he publicly confessed, not to mention his previous crimes. Their refusal had nothing to do with 'evidence'. " Source? Bin Laden initially declined responsibility, saying his hosts the taliban, would not allow such a operation. (surely not out of being nice, but because of wanting to keep the power) And later (after he confessed) the US was on full war with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden not with them anymore.

yyyk 5y ago
>And later (after he confessed) the US was on full war with the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden not with them anymore. I'm referring to that, not to his preinasvion evasion. The Taliban didn't even cut relations with him or his associates after he confessed, and they were not without influence in AfPak. Surely the Taliban should have been very upset with their 'guests' for getting them involved in Al-Qaeda's war, right? Unless the Taliban knew from the start... Obviously they did, since this wasn't Al-Qaeda's first attack against America. As I wrote, there's little reason to give any credence to their not knowing, and even if we did, there were plenty of other things they should have given up Bin Laden for.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "Surely the Taliban should have been very upset with their 'guests' for getting them involved in Al-Qaeda's war, right? " I am pretty sure, they were upset and maybe there were actual heads rolling behind the scenes. But on the outside, they had the US as common enemy. An enemy that hit them both as hard as he could, without making any difference. So of course at that time, talking about extradiction was over. But the Taliban while at power did made the civic offer to extradict Bin Laden, if presented with evidence. So of course, it is not sure, if they actually would have done it. Maybe they would have ended in a civic war by themself over it. But we never knew, because the US choose to go the brutal way. No evidence. No extradiction. Just war. Now 20 years later with the Taliban back in power and stronger than ever, I can just say, awesome outcome with this approach.
  - yyyk 5y ago

7952 5y ago

Given the ridiculously uncertain nature of war it seems reasonable to expect that we take responsibility for the unintended consequences of our actions. Our good intentions at the start are irrelevant. War introduces a lot of entropy into nations. It is the ultimate dice roll in terms of outcomes. You are taking a gamble. And history would suggest that civilians suffer hugely whatever the political outcome. If we know that then how can we shut our eyes to that effect?