h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"I like a bit of cynical rhetoric as much as anyone else, but is anyone seriously claiming that the intention was to kill civilians and 3,500 was all they could manage?"

It's not exactly first degree murder, more like second degree or manslaughter. When a nation decides to have a war, they know that hundreds or thousands of civilians are at risk in the process, but they weigh that it's worth the risk. (Madeline Albright even says "we feel it's worth it" when the victims are half a million Iraqi children.)

The intention in Afghanistan was to avoid killing civilians, but they went ahead with actions that they knew would result in some civilian deaths. We are still responsible, because we knew it would happen. Our leaders should not be let off the hook that easily, and we shouldn't be let off either.

When someone drives through a red light and runs over a child, you don't give him a fine just for running the red light. He's not excused just because he never intended to kill the child. We hold him responsible for manslaughter, because everyone knows this is a possible consequence of driving recklessly.

Everyone knows that launching war will kill a certain number of civilians.

The people who launched the war are responsible for those deaths.

And since we know that anyone who funds terrorists is guilty of terrorism, then it follows that tax-payers are similarly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians that their governments may cause. [A million in Iraq via sanctions of mass destruction?, but that's another argument. How many children under the age of five died from diarrhea or the flu last year with the help of my tax dollars enforcing sanctions? Hmmm. ]

If the intention of the Afghanistan bombing wasn't to inflict pain on the civilian population (that's what you get for harbouring terrorists/freedom fighters/rebel scum), then why did Bush initialy say that the damage inflicted on Afghanistan would be 'proportional' to that of New York. Now you can pretend you don't know what he meant by that, but anyone with half a brain can work it out. Which should give the republicans an edge. Funny that Orwell is popping up here - I've been re-running the movie 'Brazil' (a non-literal translation of 1884) in my head the last few days, and the similarities between the movie and the events of the last year or so are uncanny. Depressingly it reflected the Thatcher regime when I forst saw it. A couple of years ago I thought it was out of date and no longer applicable. Sadly it's now more relevent than ever before.
Expecting to get flamed as an anti-American, or 'liberal' (I love the way that's used as an insult)

"Those who would intentionally inflict harm on noncombatents {civilians} should not be afforded the rights due under the geneeva convention for they are nothing more then murderers."

Starbirth, assuming you mean the Taliban fighters held in Cuba I can't agree. They are prisoners of war, not terrorist suspects in connection with the September attacks. The Taliban were a regime willing to harbour bin Laden but, as far as I know, they were not involved in his foreign terrorist campaigns. That is Al-Quaida's business. The Taliban were fighting an Afghan action against the United Front forces, they weren't really involved in foreign wars as far as I can tell.

As for the Orwell/Bush thing, the reason you can read "similarities" into it is that Orwell satirised the general tactics a government will always use in wartime (not necessarily a totalitarian one) in his book. You can see parallels to 1984 in any government or it's political speak. That does not automatically equate any such government with the totalitarian monolith of 1984.

"They are prisoners of war, not terrorist suspects in connection with the September attacks."

Zagreb, I'm afraid to say they are not prisoners of war, as war was never declared. This was a deliberate move on behalf of the US so they could effectively deny their prisoners the rights accorded by the Geneva convention, and interrogate them way beyond the 'name, rank, number' stage.

"the reason you can read "similarities" into it is that Orwell satirised the general tactics a government will always use in wartime (not necessarily a totalitarian one) in his book."

Yes, thanks for clearing that one up, Zagreb. I thought it was a fairy story.

"You can see parallels to 1984 in any government or it's political speak. That does not automatically equate any such government with the totalitarian monolith of 1984."

No, but when rights are being seriously erroded, there is a semi-permanent state of war abroad and the enemy is a faceless country (1984) or an un-named terrorist organisation (Brasil), and people (foriegn nationals) can be snatched off the streets and held, tortured (only psychologically of course - no bruises) without their families being informed, then some parallels are closer than others.

"Yes, thanks for clearing that one up, Zagreb. I thought it was a fairy story."

Don't be sarky! . I was pointing out that Orwell satirised what tactics non-totalitarian governments (as well as totalitarians) used. The point being that seeing a parallel with "1984" does not make a government totalitarian.

"No, but when rights are being seriously erroded, there is a semi-permanent state of war abroad and the enemy is a faceless country (1984) or an un-named terrorist organisation (Brasil), and people (foriegn nationals) can be snatched off the streets and held, tortured (only psychologically of course - no bruises) without their families being informed, then some parallels are closer than others."

You talk like this is a new and unique situation. This state of play has been in existance since the first states were formed and will never go away, I'm afraid. State's always have enemies (usually real, rather than imagined) and take often-illiberal steps to combat them. Sometimes they work and the State claims it is "vindicated", sometimes they don't and the State makes whining excuses of "ends justify the means" or ends up looking an arse.

>I like a bit of cynical rhetoric as much as anyone else, but is anyone seriously claiming that the intention was to kill civilians and 3,500 was all they could manage? <

I will assume that apparitions is speaking of afganies killed by americans during the agfganie campaign. If that is so i would ask first were do you get those numbers as they are suspiciouly close to the number killed in the 9/11 attack.

If you are talking about civialion afganie causualties there is a big differance between acidentually killing civialions during war by soldiers then civilians using planes or bombs to intentionally target and kill civilions. It is paifully obvious that if the US and briton wanted to kill civilians aganistan would be populated by nothing bigger than scorpians.If there is any researcher here that can not see the differance between a state sponered military attacking training camps whose sole design is to train terrorist to kill that countrys civilansc and terrorist killing inocent civilions going about every day life than my heart goes out to them {for they have but a tenous hold on reality.

If the terrorist are soldiers in a freedon organizations as some clain than why do the not attack the ones who they say oppress them the military. Could it be that the military has weapons and could protect themseleves against these ;BRAVE' freedom fighters

appologise for typos in above post hit send before i could check first draft.

"If that is so i would ask first were do you get those numbers as they are suspiciouly close to the number killed in the 9/11 attack."

The article below lists estimates by different groups that range from 400 to 3600.

http://www.cursor.org/stories/noncounters.htm

The next article shows the effect the media plays in reporting casualties amongst many other intersting monetary comparisons of wrongukl death:

http://www.cursor.org/stories/heroldon911.htm


My biggest gripe is with the fact that the various governments involved in military action in Afghanistan have tried to suppress casulty figures. Not only incivilians but also in military. Everytime there is a news headline concerning any fighting, front-and-center is a statement if any US or Brittish troops have been killed or wounded. They neglect to mention the fact that the front-line troops belong to the northern alliance and not to any western country.

Has anyone seen casulty figures for northern allience troops involved in US led attacks?

Starbirth, they do attack the military: have you forgotten the attacks on USS Cole and the Pentagon already?

"Zagreb, I'm afraid to say they are not prisoners of war, as war was never declared. This was a deliberate move on behalf of the US so they could effectively deny their prisoners the rights accorded by the Geneva convention, and interrogate them way beyond the 'name, rank, number' stage."

You're damn right that they arent PoW's. They are Suspected Terrorists. Or do you think the CIA etc, just picked up about 100 Taliban fighters, just to incarcerate them in Cuba?

According to the Geneva Conventions, to be classed as PoW you also have to abide by the same conventions yourselves. The Geneva Conventions werent meant as a "We are Holier than thou, and we will turn the other cheek if you hit us". It is meant as a very serious warning to opposing parties, that you either Abide by them, or God help you.

Terrorists and Spies are quite clearly, by definition and by process of exclusion, arent covered in anyway shape or form in the Geneva Conventions. Which is something considering everybody else i.e. the Farm boy armed with the family .22, protecting the house, is.

The suspected Terrorists in Cuba in anycase are treated better than what our Servicemen would be treated like. Which isnt hard, but when you are fed 3 times a day, live in sanitory conditions (better than those of your guards), have your religon respected. And compare them to Western Civilians which have been flayed alive, or the way Iraqi's treated downed Airman etc in OP DS?

"Or do you think the CIA etc, just picked up about 100 Taliban fighters, just to incarcerate them in Cuba?"

That's about the size of it.

And so what do you think they could possibily gain from this? I kinow Military Inteligence is a contradiction in terms, but still.

"I will assume that apparitions is speaking of afganies killed by americans during the agfganie campaign. If that is so i would ask first were do you get those numbers as they are suspiciouly close to the number killed in the 9/11 attack."

So do you call a feww hundred difference "close" do you?

----------

There is only a small difference between targeting civilians and what they did. A cowardly campaign of high altitude bomming and missile attacks was waged with *no* reguard for civilian lives at all.

Again, you're right on the money.

What they hope to gain is information, but the CIA's intelligence gathering has been so inadequate that the US has been reduced to going on a fishing expedition. I suspect most of the prisoners are being held simply on the off chance they know something the CIA doesn't. I doubt there's any substantial evidence against most of them and the chances are that none will emerge, but that doesn't matter because they're only a bunch of foreigners who no-one important cares about, so why not ride roughshod over their rights if there's a chance some useful information will come of it?

"A cowardly campaign of high altitude bomming and missile attacks was waged with *no* reguard for civilian lives at all."

Granted there were mistakes, but does the air campaign really needs to be refered to as this? If you think so, then I really think you need a new outlook on life. And it seems to me that if the US wanted to kill Civilians, they could have done that with alot greater effect than what they apparently did.

Does anybody have reliable casualty figures for Afghanistan?

Apparition, you're being disingenuous. You know perfectly well the US did have regard for civilian casualties otherwise far more would have died, you just don't think they had enough regard so you're saying they had none at all to dramatize your point.

Yes they did mycroft, only problem they did it dressed as local civilions during peace time.

Why not just say they were covert operations the way the CIA does?

"And it seems to me that if the US wanted to kill Civilians, they could have done that with alot greater effect than what they apparently did."

Try reading the whole post before picking on what wasn't there.

----------

"Granted there were mistakes, but does the air campaign really needs to be refered to as this? If you think so, then I really think you need a new outlook on life."

why? I don't get it. Is it bacause of *who* was in involved that they somehow deserved some hushed reguard not to be questioned. Is it bacause americans were involved (can I expect flaming).

-----------

If you and read the post again I didn't say they were targeted.
Can either of you show where the was any reguard for civilian life?

-----------

http://www.fair.org/activism/afghanistan-casualties.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm
http://www.comw.org/pda/0201oef.html

"hat causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan." from: http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm

------------

By your attitudes I guess you'll find a way even to dismiss the BBC

Apparition, you seem to have something of a mental block on this one. If there was no regard for civilian life, why were there less civilian casualties than in any comparable period of, say, the Vietnam War or WWII? Do you think the US has got less proficient at killing people in the interim?