Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

**Hax** · 08-01-2010, 01:55

I think he's trying to say that the Afghanistan and Iraq war are justified by 9/11 so we justify the deaths of innocents in those wars by the deaths of innocents in 9/11.

I think he's being ironic (or trying to at least). How one would connect Iraq and 9/11 is something of a mystery to me.

**Skullheadhq** · 08-01-2010, 09:35

Originally Posted by Hax

How one would connect Iraq and 9/11 is something of a mystery to me.

But yet some stupids did, with devastating consequences.

Originally Posted by Washington Post 2004

President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming [...] We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." [....] In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

But anyway, back to topic.

**Centurion1** · 08-01-2010, 17:06

And there's the requisite bush bash of the thread.

Carry on everybody.

**Jolt** · 08-01-2010, 18:40

Originally Posted by Hax

I think he's being ironic (or trying to at least). How one would connect Iraq and 9/11 is something of a mystery to me.

**Furunculus** · 08-01-2010, 18:56

ah look, there we go again.

anyone noticed how bush looks like hitler?

................ oops, Godwin alert!

**Ice** · 08-01-2010, 19:02

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 08-03-2010, 00:37

Skully:

One of the regrettable truths of combat is that defeating an opponent often requires you to emulate some of the characteristics of that opponent. We are opposed by an enemy that specifically targets non-combatants in order to generate the highest possible number of casualties for the least use of resources. Setting aside the utter imorality/evil of the 9-11 attacks, it was brilliantly efficient. Resources were stolen from the target and used against that same target with much damage and loss of life resulting. Less than two dozen lives were lost by the attackers and surprisingly little was spent to fund the attack.

The US does not and will not specifically target non-combatants. Regrettably, quite a few of them get killed by the USA as a by-product of attacks on legitimate targets. In addition, some die as a result of mistaken targetting. Each of these lives is a tragic loss, and each tends to make a few enemies. Unfortunately, waging war without such "collateral damage" is virtually impossible.

So, if your argument boils down to "the USA is no better than Al Queda because they both kill the innocent," then I submit that your argument fails to address both the intentions of US violence and the efforts made to minimize the death of the innocent. Asserting a moral equivalence is not justified.

If your argument boils down to "all violence is bad, so just stop it." then I submit that your argument is naive. Violence should not be the first choice for resolving conflict, but if violence is used against you than a violent response is justified. In fact, if one side willingly employes violence and the other does not, the violent ones have a horrific advantage in the conflict.

If your argument is working on a deeper level, I was unable to discern it.

**rory_20_uk** · 08-03-2010, 12:13

The USA on a governmental level might not specifically target civilians, but the grunts on the ground have shown on more than one occasion to take what could be charitably described as a "pragmatic" approach and gun down everyone who gets to close to be on the safe side.

The concept of minimising deaths is of course a relative thing. Propping up a regime and blowing up the enemies of the regime from afar is causing a lot more deaths than leaving the area well alone. Relying on drones and intel rather than eyeballing a target also increases the odds of killing civilians.

We speak of our returning heroes / corpses and their tragic loss, but what is this achieving exactly?

Ground is captured - guerillas never fight to keep ground
Troops are killed - never that many and the Taliban's best recruitment is the Christian Invaders killing women and children from Afar.
Leaders are killed - again, never that many to destroy the group which after all is an idea and it's difficult to kill ideas.

There's not the commitment to systemically root out the Taliban (the nigh on impossible task of dividing the country up with check points and clearing each part - with the fact that the Taliban don't wear uniforms and many Afghans have guns...) and the fact that after the Allies leave there's a good chance the governors will either join with or become warlords and use their police / military as their army.

It's one thing to back a power and help them win, another to create a power and expect it to survive after you leave.

**Skullheadhq** · 08-03-2010, 12:58

I saw some interviews on NOVA (Dutch news programme) where they interviewed a squadron that returned from Iraq years ago and they admitted killing civilians on purpose because they didn't see Iraqis as human anymore because their sergeant was killed.