9 ms·

You know what bothers me about this? Look how this event and everyone like it is surrounded by newspeak. We were uncertain. Unfortunate casualties. Inconclusive

You know what bothers me about this? Look how this event and everyone like it is surrounded by newspeak. We were uncertain. Unfortunate casualties. Inconclusive intelligence. Imminent threat. American interests. It's all bullshit. The US government can't even tell themselves the truth let alone anyone else. They are drinking the kool-aid through a firehose.

twoodfin 13y ago
So what is the truth? This happened on purpose?
- contingencies 13y ago
  They don't just give people military hardware and let them go nuts. Employees have to attack the targets they are ordered to.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    So, yes? Civilians were directly targeted?
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Somebody made the call to bomb the village. Either they knew it was a village, or they did not know it was a village. Therefore that person was either malicious or incompetent. Do we really care which? Mens rea isn't required for drunk drivers, why should we demand it for dropping bombs on villages?
      - smsm42 13y ago
        They knew it was the village. They knew there were Taliban there shooting on US and Afghan forces. They didn't know where the civilians were - because when there is shooting going around, civilians hide and it is very hard to see if there are any around, and how many of them, especially when you're being shot at at the same time. So they called an airstrike, and that turned out to be a big mistake. They could suspect that there might be civilians - since among Taliban, just like similar groups like Hamas or Hesbollah - hiding among civilians and using them as a cover is a common tactic, and since it is a village after all - but they did not know where, how many, etc. After many hours of fighting against hundreds of Taliban and after suffering casualties, the people on the ground made decision to call in air strike. Unfortunately, that resulted in tragedy, since the places where airstrikes were asked (presumably where Taliban forces were concentrated) turned out to be at or near the same places where the civilians hid. If the US soldiers on the ground knew that, they probably could do something else, but I don't see how they had to know it in the heat of the battle. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/world/asia/15farah.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/world/asia/15farah.html
        ucee054 13y ago
        They could have run away in defeat instead of "destroying the village to save it". By the way, it's a really crappy air force that can't do an air strike with sleeping-gas bombs.
        shabble 13y ago
        > By the way, it's a really crappy air force that can't do an air strike with sleeping-gas bombs. I daresay that would be a lot less effective than you might expect. See the Moscow theater hostage situation[1][2] for what happens when trying to use it on a fixed target with ground level access. Imagine how much harder that would be from an air-drop, and the concentration gradient you'd end up with. Individual dispensers, cluster-bomb style might help a bit, but I still think you'd end up killing anyone close-by if you wanted it strong enough to permeate buildings. Calling in a heavy smoke/CS drop and then retreating might be a sensible option, although I don't think there's nearly enough (public) information for anyone to judge definitively on the correct course of action in this instance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
        ucee054 13y ago
        The Moscow situation is not comparable to Afghan countryside. If "effective" includes "not killing innocent civilians" then sleeping gas would work much better than what they are dropping now. If smoke or CS would work better, well it's the military's responsibility, not mine, to the the R&D to pick the right tool to protect civilians as required by law. It doesn't look like they give a fuck.
        shabble 13y ago
        > The Moscow situation is not comparable to Afghan countryside. Precisely. If anything, it's a much more easily controlled environment for gas diffusion, and allowed almost immediate entry by the special forces to clear the area. Even then, there were significant hostage fatalities (although in a large part due to medical staff not being timely informed of the nature of the gas, or provided with the antidote) Achieving that level of consistency of dose (enough to work, not enough to kill) in a rural village environment, via air-dropped containers, is, IMO, utterly impossible. I'm arguing against your suggestion of 'sleeping gas bombs' only, not that the indiscriminate bombing is/was the correct choice. In addition, R&D only determines what you will have available maybe some time in the future. If you're in combat right now, you don't have the luxury of waiting 3-5 years for promising test-bench stuff to make it to your rucksack/support units. If all you have is high-explosives, eventually everything looks like rubble.
    - alan_cx 13y ago
      Ah, remember the NSA spying on civilians stuff? What was the weasel word google and facebook were, well, are relying on? Oh yes "direct".
theorique 13y ago
It's war. Shit happens in war. It's terrible, of course, but I don't think anybody in the military intends things like this to happen (aside from a few legitimate psychopaths who use the chaos for their own ends). It's 'just' a horrifying side effect of using war and military power as a blunt instrument for statecraft.
- tinco 13y ago
  > It's war. Shit happens in war. Fuck that, the U.S. has a huge dominant army with superior technology and well trained personnel. They bombard a village because it's easy and effective. Someone made a decision that the lives of American soldiers were worth more than an entire Afghan village. That's a war crime, and someone should pay for that. And that person should not be Bradley Manning..
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    What do you think used to happen with artillery strikes? It doesn't make it ok, but in war when under fire, they would call in air-strikes or artillery and clear a whole ridge. The difference is "the heat of battle" versus intelligence that 3 terrorist operatives where staying in a village of 300 people. Military operations are not law enforcement. They aren't required to prevent all deaths other than combatants. I don't know where you draw the line on collateral damage, but to say that you can't kill any "innocents" is not practical.
    - angersock 13y ago
      " but to say that you can't kill any "innocents" is not practical." Yes, by all means, let us not burden our efficiency at slaughtering our fellow man with morality!
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Why should the soldiers on the ground consider it moral that 5 of them die so that 1 less civilian dies? Certainly that's an easy choice for you to make; you're not the one bearing the brunt of that decision.
smsm42 13y ago
How would you say the truth? What you would want to have US government say?
- samstave 13y ago
  You make the mistake of believing there is any actual threat behind the voiced justifications for their actions. How would I say the truth? The world is a beautiful and amazing place full of divinely creative and wonderful humans. We all need to work together toward a singular goal: evolving our civilization and exploring the truths of existence and the universe. We should see that we are a singular species on this planet that has evolved to a level of intelligence that allows us to explore the wider universe around us and gaining understanding and ultimately wisdom of this universe, existence and ourselves should be our cohesive, singular goal.
  - AlexanderDhoore 13y ago
    Imagine someone saying this on the news! At some important press conference... People would be very, very confused.
  - smsm42 13y ago
    I see how it makes sense for the Army to say exactly that. I wonder why nobody thought about it before. If only the US Army would think about how wonderful people are, there would be no need for anyone to defend oneself anymore. Really, somebody should tell them.
  - tome 13y ago
    The world is a beautiful and amazing place full of divinely creative and wonderful humans. We all need to work together toward a singular goal: evolving our civilization and exploring the truths of existence and the universe. We should see that we are a singular species on this planet that has evolved to a level of intelligence that allows us to explore the wider universe around us and gaining understanding and ultimately wisdom of this universe, existence and ourselves should be our cohesive, singular goal. Tell that to the Taliban.
rangibaby 13y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."

twoodfin 13y ago

So what is the truth? This happened on purpose?

contingencies 13y ago
They don't just give people military hardware and let them go nuts. Employees have to attack the targets they are ordered to.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  So, yes? Civilians were directly targeted?
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Somebody made the call to bomb the village. Either they knew it was a village, or they did not know it was a village. Therefore that person was either malicious or incompetent. Do we really care which? Mens rea isn't required for drunk drivers, why should we demand it for dropping bombs on villages?
    - smsm42 13y ago
      They knew it was the village. They knew there were Taliban there shooting on US and Afghan forces. They didn't know where the civilians were - because when there is shooting going around, civilians hide and it is very hard to see if there are any around, and how many of them, especially when you're being shot at at the same time. So they called an airstrike, and that turned out to be a big mistake. They could suspect that there might be civilians - since among Taliban, just like similar groups like Hamas or Hesbollah - hiding among civilians and using them as a cover is a common tactic, and since it is a village after all - but they did not know where, how many, etc. After many hours of fighting against hundreds of Taliban and after suffering casualties, the people on the ground made decision to call in air strike. Unfortunately, that resulted in tragedy, since the places where airstrikes were asked (presumably where Taliban forces were concentrated) turned out to be at or near the same places where the civilians hid. If the US soldiers on the ground knew that, they probably could do something else, but I don't see how they had to know it in the heat of the battle. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/world/asia/15farah.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/world/asia/15farah.html
      - ucee054 13y ago
        They could have run away in defeat instead of "destroying the village to save it". By the way, it's a really crappy air force that can't do an air strike with sleeping-gas bombs.
        shabble 13y ago
        > By the way, it's a really crappy air force that can't do an air strike with sleeping-gas bombs. I daresay that would be a lot less effective than you might expect. See the Moscow theater hostage situation[1][2] for what happens when trying to use it on a fixed target with ground level access. Imagine how much harder that would be from an air-drop, and the concentration gradient you'd end up with. Individual dispensers, cluster-bomb style might help a bit, but I still think you'd end up killing anyone close-by if you wanted it strong enough to permeate buildings. Calling in a heavy smoke/CS drop and then retreating might be a sensible option, although I don't think there's nearly enough (public) information for anyone to judge definitively on the correct course of action in this instance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
        ucee054 13y ago
        The Moscow situation is not comparable to Afghan countryside. If "effective" includes "not killing innocent civilians" then sleeping gas would work much better than what they are dropping now. If smoke or CS would work better, well it's the military's responsibility, not mine, to the the R&D to pick the right tool to protect civilians as required by law. It doesn't look like they give a fuck.
        shabble 13y ago
        > The Moscow situation is not comparable to Afghan countryside. Precisely. If anything, it's a much more easily controlled environment for gas diffusion, and allowed almost immediate entry by the special forces to clear the area. Even then, there were significant hostage fatalities (although in a large part due to medical staff not being timely informed of the nature of the gas, or provided with the antidote) Achieving that level of consistency of dose (enough to work, not enough to kill) in a rural village environment, via air-dropped containers, is, IMO, utterly impossible. I'm arguing against your suggestion of 'sleeping gas bombs' only, not that the indiscriminate bombing is/was the correct choice. In addition, R&D only determines what you will have available maybe some time in the future. If you're in combat right now, you don't have the luxury of waiting 3-5 years for promising test-bench stuff to make it to your rucksack/support units. If all you have is high-explosives, eventually everything looks like rubble.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Ah, remember the NSA spying on civilians stuff? What was the weasel word google and facebook were, well, are relying on? Oh yes "direct".

theorique 13y ago

It's war. Shit happens in war. It's terrible, of course, but I don't think anybody in the military intends things like this to happen (aside from a few legitimate psychopaths who use the chaos for their own ends). It's 'just' a horrifying side effect of using war and military power as a blunt instrument for statecraft.

tinco 13y ago
> It's war. Shit happens in war. Fuck that, the U.S. has a huge dominant army with superior technology and well trained personnel. They bombard a village because it's easy and effective. Someone made a decision that the lives of American soldiers were worth more than an entire Afghan village. That's a war crime, and someone should pay for that. And that person should not be Bradley Manning..
- darkarmani 13y ago
  What do you think used to happen with artillery strikes? It doesn't make it ok, but in war when under fire, they would call in air-strikes or artillery and clear a whole ridge. The difference is "the heat of battle" versus intelligence that 3 terrorist operatives where staying in a village of 300 people. Military operations are not law enforcement. They aren't required to prevent all deaths other than combatants. I don't know where you draw the line on collateral damage, but to say that you can't kill any "innocents" is not practical.
  - angersock 13y ago
    " but to say that you can't kill any "innocents" is not practical." Yes, by all means, let us not burden our efficiency at slaughtering our fellow man with morality!
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Why should the soldiers on the ground consider it moral that 5 of them die so that 1 less civilian dies? Certainly that's an easy choice for you to make; you're not the one bearing the brunt of that decision.

smsm42 13y ago

How would you say the truth? What you would want to have US government say?

samstave 13y ago
You make the mistake of believing there is any actual threat behind the voiced justifications for their actions. How would I say the truth? The world is a beautiful and amazing place full of divinely creative and wonderful humans. We all need to work together toward a singular goal: evolving our civilization and exploring the truths of existence and the universe. We should see that we are a singular species on this planet that has evolved to a level of intelligence that allows us to explore the wider universe around us and gaining understanding and ultimately wisdom of this universe, existence and ourselves should be our cohesive, singular goal.
- AlexanderDhoore 13y ago
  Imagine someone saying this on the news! At some important press conference... People would be very, very confused.
- smsm42 13y ago
  I see how it makes sense for the Army to say exactly that. I wonder why nobody thought about it before. If only the US Army would think about how wonderful people are, there would be no need for anyone to defend oneself anymore. Really, somebody should tell them.
- tome 13y ago
  The world is a beautiful and amazing place full of divinely creative and wonderful humans. We all need to work together toward a singular goal: evolving our civilization and exploring the truths of existence and the universe. We should see that we are a singular species on this planet that has evolved to a level of intelligence that allows us to explore the wider universe around us and gaining understanding and ultimately wisdom of this universe, existence and ourselves should be our cohesive, singular goal. Tell that to the Taliban.

rangibaby 13y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tre "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."