4 ms·

> 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 becau

by 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.
    - angersock 13y ago
      It would seem that the civilians would be the ones bearing the brunt of those decisions. More importantly, the issue at hand is that we don't know whether that decision was as clean-cut as you suggest, precisely because of the lack of transparency of our .gov and .mil. Now, there are very sound opsec reasons for not making that information public, but when we are the foreign aggressor I believe that it is not an unreasonable burden to place on ourselves; indeed, it may help encourage caution when considering military adventures abroad.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      Because they signed up for it and are paid to risk their lives. They then get another choice - they can refuse to go there. The civilians don't get that choice. There isn't much fair in the situation, but I sure dont think many people would argue that the civilians are in the position of strength.
    - tinco 13y ago
      First, because they are soldiers and that is what they signed up for to do. Second, it was not 5 soldier lives versus 1 civilian, more likely it was 5 soldier lives versus 140 civilian lives. Third, yes I myself would probably also make the same decision, favouring the lives of my friends over a bunch of foreigners who are probably on the enemies side. That doesn't make it less wrong, if I was in that position, and I made that decision, I would still have to be tried for committing a war crime, because that's what it is.
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    Why don't we keep pretending that there is a way to wage war without innocents dying? Why don't we mention the morality of terrorists using villagers as body shields? There is some complicity for both the villagers and the terrorists in all of this as well.
- ucee054 13y ago
  Military operations are not law enforcement. A side that operates like this doesn't get to call itself the "Good Guys" or call its opponents "Terrorists".
smsm42 13y ago
>>> Someone made a decision that the lives of American soldiers were worth more than an entire Afghan village Nobody made this decision. American soldiers were already engaged in the fight with large Taliban force and suffering casualties when the strike was called in. They most probably had no idea where civilians are, since it wasn't exactly home terrain for them (they were called in from Farah when Afghans came under attack) and finding out where civilians are in the conditions of active urban warfare is next to impossible. They only target that makes sense to call air strike on is where the shooting at you originates. Turned out, it was also where the civilians were hiding (read: Taliban was probably firing either from the same or from the nearby places). Common tactics, Hamas is Gaza places rocket launchers near mosques, on the roofs of hospitals and in the school yards for exactly the same reason. If the army new that, they could probably do something else - retreat, regroup and try to resolve it in some other way, but I don't see where could they know it from.
theorique 13y ago
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. Is that true? I mean, it could be, but I'm wondering if anyone determined this to be the case, or is this just speculation based on descriptions of the video of the attack.

by tinco 13y ago

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.
  - angersock 13y ago
    It would seem that the civilians would be the ones bearing the brunt of those decisions. More importantly, the issue at hand is that we don't know whether that decision was as clean-cut as you suggest, precisely because of the lack of transparency of our .gov and .mil. Now, there are very sound opsec reasons for not making that information public, but when we are the foreign aggressor I believe that it is not an unreasonable burden to place on ourselves; indeed, it may help encourage caution when considering military adventures abroad.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Because they signed up for it and are paid to risk their lives. They then get another choice - they can refuse to go there. The civilians don't get that choice. There isn't much fair in the situation, but I sure dont think many people would argue that the civilians are in the position of strength.
  - tinco 13y ago
    First, because they are soldiers and that is what they signed up for to do. Second, it was not 5 soldier lives versus 1 civilian, more likely it was 5 soldier lives versus 140 civilian lives. Third, yes I myself would probably also make the same decision, favouring the lives of my friends over a bunch of foreigners who are probably on the enemies side. That doesn't make it less wrong, if I was in that position, and I made that decision, I would still have to be tried for committing a war crime, because that's what it is.
- darkarmani 13y ago
  Why don't we keep pretending that there is a way to wage war without innocents dying? Why don't we mention the morality of terrorists using villagers as body shields? There is some complicity for both the villagers and the terrorists in all of this as well.
ucee054 13y ago
Military operations are not law enforcement. A side that operates like this doesn't get to call itself the "Good Guys" or call its opponents "Terrorists".

smsm42 13y ago

>>> Someone made a decision that the lives of American soldiers were worth more than an entire Afghan village Nobody made this decision. American soldiers were already engaged in the fight with large Taliban force and suffering casualties when the strike was called in. They most probably had no idea where civilians are, since it wasn't exactly home terrain for them (they were called in from Farah when Afghans came under attack) and finding out where civilians are in the conditions of active urban warfare is next to impossible. They only target that makes sense to call air strike on is where the shooting at you originates. Turned out, it was also where the civilians were hiding (read: Taliban was probably firing either from the same or from the nearby places). Common tactics, Hamas is Gaza places rocket launchers near mosques, on the roofs of hospitals and in the school yards for exactly the same reason. If the army new that, they could probably do something else - retreat, regroup and try to resolve it in some other way, but I don't see where could they know it from.

theorique 13y ago

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. Is that true? I mean, it could be, but I'm wondering if anyone determined this to be the case, or is this just speculation based on descriptions of the video of the attack.