Us Soldier guilty of killing Afghan Civilians

[Kilgore Trout]

War is an unnatural state for the human psyche. Atrocities, degradation, rape, etc. have always existed in war. You can't put people in an environment where their life is threatened and they are expected to kill other human beings without them regressing to a more primitive psychological state. That's why I avoid joining wars.

 

[Alceste]

Right, by watching the media. Is this the same media that we can't trust because it covers up the American soldiers' crimes?

No, the media we can't trust (aka corporate controlled news) is not usually the same media that exposes crimes against humanity. However, when a big enough stink is raised by the release of documentation of crimes against humanity on sources we CAN trust, like Wikileaks, Greg Palast and other havens for whistle-blowers, the untrustworthy media tends to pick it up. It sells papers and helps to enhance the illusion of objectivity they depend on to sell ad space to their corporate advertisers. But they also tend not to honestly report on the context or content.

Nevertheless, we've all seen at least one of these videos or photographs with our own eyes, haven't we?

White phosphorus use in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...es-killing-of-two-Reuters-journalists-in-Iraq
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The basic facts of these photos and videos are not contested by the US government. All of them show illegal and barbaric mistreatment and murder of civilians. The US only argues that it's OK to mistreat and murder civilians during a war, as long as you're hoping to get a few militants in the process.

Recall that fatima said: "Wikileaks has really took away that heavy feeling I had of seeing people being killed while hearing others say that they were not the reason behind it."

So my question is, did fatima herself see people getting killed, while others denied it? Or, did fatima see Al Jazeera Arabic claim people were getting killed, while the BBC denied it? I think this is a legitimate question and I'm curious to know the answer.

Al Jazeera is as reliable a news organization as any and more reliable than some. Nobody needs to make false claims about civilians being killed by American soldiers when civilians are actually, factually being killed by American soldiers every week. Surely you realize how ludicrous it is to suggest such a thing. It's a war! What do you think a war is? Fighters killing fighters? Give me a break.

 

[fatima_bintu_islam]

Yet, the denial continue among some people...

 

[Sunstone]

In every war of the past 100 years, the civilian death rate has exceeded the military death rate.

 

[Panda]

In every war of the past 100 years, the civilian death rate has exceeded the military death rate.

Not strictly true, the Falklands War had a very small number of civilian casualties.

 

[Sunstone]

A friend and I were talking about the soon-to-be Iraq War a week or two before the war started.

As it turned out, he was for the coming war and I was against it. I said to him, "Look, if we go to war a lot of innocent people are going to get killed."

"Innocent people?", he asked.

"Iraqi civilians. Non-combatants. These days, wars always kill a lot of civilians."

"Yeah", he said, "But they don't count. They aren't our civilians."

In my friend's defense, he's emotionally ill. Yet, all the same, I thought at the time that a lot of people would agree with him.

 

[Sunstone]

Not strictly true, the Falklands War had a very small number of civilian casualties.

True. I suppose there might be one or two others that break the rule too. But in general, wars kill more civilians than combatants these days.

 

[Panda]

A friend and I were talking about the soon-to-be Iraq War a week or two before the war started.

As it turned out, he was for the coming war and I was against it. I said to him, "Look, if we go to war a lot of innocent people are going to get killed."

"Innocent people?", he asked.

"Iraqi civilians. Non-combatants. These days, wars always kill a lot of civilians."

"Yeah", he said, "But they don't count. They aren't our civilians."

In my friend's defense, he's emotionally ill. Yet, all the same, I thought at the time that a lot of people would agree with him.

War has always been like that though. I mean think of the atrocities committed on both sides during WW2. When we bombed Dresden we killed roughly 25,000 civilians or Hamburg where it killed an estimated 50,000.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

True. I suppose there might be one or two others that break the rule too. But in general, wars kill more civilians than combatants these days.

Pfft - if they don't have the sense to get out of the way and go to someplace safe, like Madagascar or Antarctica, then they obviously deserve what they get.

 

[Panda]

True. I suppose there might be one or two others that break the rule too. But in general, wars kill more civilians than combatants these days.

I would disagree with the "these days" part. The crusades slaughtered entire cities, it's just that it was normally somewhere else that the people died so we never heard of it, or just didn't care. The idea that this isn't how warfare should work is a relatively new thing. Total War has been the norm for thousands of years.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would disagree with the "these days" part. The crusades slaughtered entire cities, it's just that it was normally somewhere else that the people died so we never heard of it, or just didn't care. The idea that this isn't how warfare should work is a relatively new thing. Total War has been the norm for thousands of years.

No doubt. The idea of war being something honorable is a nice romantization of the past.

 

[Sunstone]

War has always been like that though. I mean think of the atrocities committed on both sides during WW2. When we bombed Dresden we killed roughly 25,000 civilians or Hamburg where it killed an estimated 50,000.

No one is arguing otherwise.

 

[Sunstone]

I would disagree with the "these days" part. The crusades slaughtered entire cities, it's just that it was normally somewhere else that the people died so we never heard of it, or just didn't care. The idea that this isn't how warfare should work is a relatively new thing. Total War has been the norm for thousands of years.

I say "these days" because "these days" we have stats on roughly how many civilians have been killed. Go back 200 years, though, and you won't see much reference to civilian deaths except, perhaps, in cases of siege. I am not arguing that there were not more civilians killed than combatants earlier than "these days". I'm just saying we've got better information about more recent times.

By the way, the American Civil War is credited by some historians as having been the modern origin of Total War.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

No one is arguing otherwise.

C'mon, I'm sure there is someone, somewhere, who has their head up their *** who is arguing this.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

By the way, the American Civil War is credited by some historians as having been the modern origin of Total War.

First again.

 

[Sunstone]

First again.

That's not to say wars before then did not devastate the civilian populations.

 

[Panda]

I say "these days" because "these days" we have stats on roughly how many civilians have been killed. Go back 200 years, though, and you won't see much reference to civilian deaths except, perhaps, in cases of siege. I am not arguing that there were not more civilians killed than combatants earlier than "these days". I'm just saying we've got better information about more recent times.

By the way, the American Civil War is credited by some historians as having been the modern origin of Total War.

I got the impression you were saying this was a new thing in warfare, apologies. Yea normally down as the first time Total War was used consciously in modern times.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That's not to say wars before then did not devastate the civilian populations.

Yeah, but we did it bigger and better. USA #1! USA #1!

 

[Sunstone]

I got the impression you were saying this was a new thing in warfare, apologies. Yea normally down as the first time Total War was used consciously in modern times.

No problem. The 30 years war, for instance, left huge parts of German territory almost totally depopulated.

 

[Panda]

No problem. The 30 years war, for instance, left huge parts of German territory almost totally depopulated.

Yea that was a very violent time in European history even for Europe. I think estimated between 25 - 30% of the population of the German states were killed.