Osama Bin Laden is DEAD!

[x88x]

Does noone care about tens of thousands of dead civilians in the middle east? We've seen so many posts about the victims of 9/11, about our own servicemen and women, what about them? Can we simply take no responsibility by describing them as collateral damage?

I most definitely do care about the civilian casualties in the middle east. But like I mentioned before, this is war, and there are always civilian casualties in war, especially urban war, where (iirc) most of the civilian casualties are occurring. The problem is not that there are civilian casualties (though that is definitely a problem) but how many were avoidable. There are, the way I see it, four different categories. Those who were killed by our troops directly (ie, targeted intentionally or unintentionally), those killed by our troops indirectly (ie, collateral damage from missile strikes, etc), those killed by enemy troops indirectly (ie, IEDs, mines, etc), and those killed by enemy troops directly (I would include the woman killed in bin Laden's capture in this category, regardless of who fired the shot that killed her). Only the first category do our people have any direct control over, and the second category they have a range of control over, the extent of which would depend on the specific circumstances. I don't know the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of civilian casualties have been in the third category or the result of firefights in urban areas. Take Kabul for example. At one time a point of heavy fighting, and still today, I believe. That city has a population density of ~17,267 people per square mile. 40% greater than that of London. How likely do you think civilian casualties would be if a major battle were to break out in the middle of London?

I'm not saying that civilian casualties do not matter. What I am saying is that it is foolish to think that a war could be waged with zero civilian casualties. Especially when the enemy combatants hide in civilian, residential areas. Our two countries are blessed in that we have not had a war conducted on our soil for at least the last ~150 years, so at first glance we compare it to ourselves and think "What!? How dare they let civilians get caught in a firefight!" But imagine an active firefight in a crowded neighborhood in downtown London, and how many people would die just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You mentioned missile strikes in residential areas. Since I seem to remember reading about something similar, how about this scenario. Intelligence is received that an enemy leader is occupying a specific house but will be gone and back in hiding by morning; let's say, 8 hours. Leaving this enemy leader free would likely result in the deaths of thousands but the nearest troops are 10 hours away. However, aircraft could be directed to the location and a surgical warhead could be used to destroy the house in question with little damage to any surrounding buildings. Would you make the strike even knowing that civilian casualties were a possibility?

What I'm trying to say is; war is messy and uncertain. Horrible things happen in war. But I think even with the horrible things that have been done in this war, we have done more good than harm.

[knowledgegranted]

You mentioned missile strikes in residential areas. Since I seem to remember reading about something similar, how about this scenario. Intelligence is received that an enemy leader is occupying a specific house but will be gone and back in hiding by morning; let's say, 8 hours. Leaving this enemy leader free would likely result in the deaths of thousands but the nearest troops are 10 hours away. However, aircraft could be directed to the location and a surgical warhead could be used to destroy the house in question with little damage to any surrounding buildings. Would you make the strike even knowing that civilian casualties were a possibility?

What I'm trying to say is; war is messy and uncertain. Horrible things happen in war. But I think even with the horrible things that have been done in this war, we have done more good than harm.

I would have to agree with x88x on alot of this especially the missile strikes in residential areas. Every war we have been in we have had these same scenarios. For example, WWII and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States took upon itself the constructs of the aftermath that would become of these two bombings. However the two bombings would result in far less death, and would avoid an entire mainland Japanese invasion.

I actually don't agree with what we did during WWII, but like x88x said, war is messy, decisions must be made, casualties are taken into account every time we enter a war.

[Fuganater]

I love how side tracked we got lol.

[dr.walrus]

Okat, I'm going to answer that in a different order than that in which you've posted it:

You mentioned missile strikes in residential areas. Since I seem to remember reading about something similar, how about this scenario. Intelligence is received that an enemy leader is occupying a specific house but will be gone and back in hiding by morning; let's say, 8 hours. Leaving this enemy leader free would likely result in the deaths of thousands but the nearest troops are 10 hours away. However, aircraft could be directed to the location and a surgical warhead could be used to destroy the house in question with little damage to any surrounding buildings. Would you make the strike even knowing that civilian casualties were a possibility?

Okay, ignoring the validity of this dilemma (saving thousands of lives seems like a stretch), I'll ask you one question in response:

What if the suspect was in New York or London? Would you call in that same airstrike on american or british soil? Of course we wouldn't - because we would never tolerate that loss of lives on our own citizens.

Maybe that analogy is flawed, so I'll ask the question - what if, for some reason, there was a large american civilian population resident in Iraq? Would we call in airstrikes on buildings full of people from Boston, Chicago, Dallas? No, we wouldn't - because then Americans would have to watch their families be killed, it'd be an outrage, it'd be a war crime, frankly the president would be out of office in a week if there were american civilian casualties on the level that there are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I most definitely do care about the civilian casualties in the middle east. But like I mentioned before, this is war, and there are always civilian casualties in war, especially urban war, where (iirc) most of the civilian casualties are occurring. The problem is not that there are civilian casualties (though that is definitely a problem) but how many were avoidable. There are, the way I see it, four different categories. Those who were killed by our troops directly (ie, targeted intentionally or unintentionally), those killed by our troops indirectly (ie, collateral damage from missile strikes, etc), those killed by enemy troops indirectly (ie, IEDs, mines, etc), and those killed by enemy troops directly

Okay, well think about it this way: as the primary combatant (remember, we're not fighting a government any more) in Iraq, we must partially take responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens on the ground. A response to our tactics is still an indirect result.

(I would include the woman killed in bin Laden's capture in this category, regardless of who fired the shot that killed her).

...Even if it was a Navy SEAL who shot her?

Only the first category do our people have any direct control over, and the second category they have a range of control over, the extent of which would depend on the specific circumstances. I don't know the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of civilian casualties have been in the third category or the result of firefights in urban areas. Take Kabul for example. At one time a point of heavy fighting, and still today, I believe. That city has a population density of ~17,267 people per square mile. 40% greater than that of London. How likely do you think civilian casualties would be if a major battle were to break out in the middle of London?

There would be extremely heavy casualties. And if a country had gone to war with us, knowing there'd be fighting in such densely populated areas, or without the right intelligence or even general knowledge to know the possibilities of civil war, I'd describe them as, at best, totally inhumane.

Remember who declared war in Iraq - it wasn't them, nor was it their civilians - yet they are the ones who must pay the price.

I'm not saying that civilian casualties do not matter. What I am saying is that it is foolish to think that a war could be waged with zero civilian casualties. Especially when the enemy combatants hide in civilian, residential areas. Our two countries are blessed in that we have not had a war conducted on our soil for at least the last ~150 years, so at first glance we compare it to ourselves and think "What!? How dare they let civilians get caught in a firefight!" But imagine an active firefight in a crowded neighborhood in downtown London, and how many people would die just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What I'm trying to say is; war is messy and uncertain. Horrible things happen in war. But I think even with the horrible things that have been done in this war, we have done more good than harm.

It is foolish to go to war with a shadow. We're not in a war against the nazi regime, we're not in a war with communism, we;re certainly not in a straightforward war against another country. We're in a 'war against terror', something so poorly-defined and ill-conceived, it's a shock it was ever started.

The problem is, the problem with the war on terror is we don't have true targets. We have troops packed into residentail neighbourhoods trying to target 'extremism'. We have planes with 30mm cannon trying to target 'extremism'. This is what I was saying before - we don't have guns that would just attack extremism.

And like i said before, that's the reason we shouldn't have entered these conflicts in the way we did. Even a child should know you can't invade a country because there is a rogue element being living there, or even sheltered there.

We would not accept this on our own soil, but it's okay when it happens to people who look funny and talk funny and have a 'nutty' religion. Let's put aside the ethics of civilian casualties and ask how civilian casualties breed extremisim. The answer is simple - if you kill peoples' families, they're going to fight back. And yet, we label these people 'insurgents' and 'extremists' - how are they insurgents? They lived there in the first place! Most of them are just furious about the fact Baghdad has become a completely suicidal place to live, and trying to get rid of a foreign army trying to enforce an ideological change on therm.

My view from my bedroom window as a child was a ww2 bomb site. I grew up in the ferry port to Belfast at a time of IRA bombings. The damage to my country from terrorism and ww2 was minor compared to what we've done to Iraq. The USA has never seen mainland attacks before, and what's happening now is a vast over-reaction.

[dr.walrus]

I would have to agree with x88x on alot of this especially the missile strikes in residential areas. Every war we have been in we have had these same scenarios. For example, WWII and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States took upon itself the constructs of the aftermath that would become of these two bombings. However the two bombings would result in far less death, and would avoid an entire mainland Japanese invasion.

I actually don't agree with what we did during WWII, but like x88x said, war is messy, decisions must be made, casualties are taken into account every time we enter a war.

Like I said before, the two atomic bombings were far from the only bombings of Japan in WW2. They represent at most a third of the bombing casualties from US bombing.

However, perhaps we should look at it this way - why didn't we simply negotiate for a conditional surrender? The only reason the USA dropped the atomic bombs was to force Japan into an unconditional surrender. Diplomatic options were not even investigated.

[mDust]

... to cope with the leaked cables...

Indeed. It's quite easy to control information by simply changing the topic. Suddenly the public is jubilant and forgets about shady dealings of the past.

Most people in the world are sheep with few serious thoughts or ideas of their own. People tend to borrow ideas, fashion, goals, habits, hobbies, etc...just about everything actually...from family and people they like or even idolize. The fact that celebrity clothing lines and other businesses are so stupidly successful regardless of the crap they are pushing proves this. Also, political beliefs tend to be passed down from generation to generation...it's because it's one of the borrowed ideas that we are taught from an early age. It's pretty rare when someone objectively looks at their borrowed ideas and actions and changes them. Most people just do what the crowd does.

Now, why would anyone expect anyone else to jump outside the norm and question something, like the War on Terror, in great detail? Individuals of the masses don't question most of the things they do themselves, so why would they question the decision making of someone who isn't on their favorite TV show? People blown to bits by a precision missile strike on the other side of the planet is no different to most people than people blown to bits in a movie. There is minimal emotional attachment, and after the spinsters inform the media that 500 terrorists were killed in the blast, nobody inquires about the 500 civilians casualties. Hell, sometimes boom mics are mistaken for AK-47s and all casualties in a firefight turn out to be civilian. How many people questioned it? One. He's now in a military prison for trying to open our eyes to some of the bad decisions that are being made.

Everyone is ignorant of something, we all can't know everything about everything. But we can learn to think about and question the things we do and the things happening around us. It doesn't matter when one person is a complete idiot and doesn't care, but when it's a whole country? It does matter. Even more so when it's soldiers heading to war.

I love how side tracked we got lol.

Lol, welcome to TBCS.

As for Osama being dead, I'll believe it when I see it. If it is actually him, I'll still be indifferent to his symbolic demise. As others have said before, this is NOT the end of terrorism or even al Qaeda. Many leaders of al Qaeda have been killed in the past and it only served as a speed bump...someone will step forward to fill the gap...just like if a ranking soldier in our military were killed.
We need to cut their funding and public support. Then invest heavily in the local economies to provide higher paying jobs so people can make a decent living and support their families without turning to mercenary careers. Then rinse and repeat since the funding comes from parties interested maintaining instability in the region and will just find new channels to accomplish their goals. Once the national governments are self-sustaining, stable and able to better control the interiors of their borders, then we can run around in 'mission complete' t-shirts.

[dr.walrus]

Now, why would anyone expect anyone else to jump outside the norm and question something, like the War on Terror, in great detail? Individuals of the masses don't question most of the things they do themselves, so why would they question the decision making of someone who isn't on their favorite TV show? People blown to bits by a precision missile strike on the other side of the planet is no different to most people than people blown to bits in a movie. There is minimal emotional attachment, and after the spinsters inform the media that 500 terrorists were killed in the blast, nobody inquires about the 500 civilians casualties. Hell, sometimes boom mics are mistaken for AK-47s and all casualties in a firefight turn out to be civilian. How many people questioned it? One. He's now in a military prison for trying to open our eyes to some of the bad decisions that are being made.

I can't add anything better to this, so i'm just going to quote it

invest heavily in the local economies to provide higher paying jobs so people can make a decent living and support their families without turning to mercenary careers.

Oh, and this

[Oneslowz28]

Yea, lets invest in their society while ours is still in economic troubles. I for one think that is a horrible idea. With fuel prices going up, my property value going down and national unemployment still in the 9-10% range lets give undeserving others our tax dollars, while we borrow more from China to cover our own asses. The answer here is simply to continue fighting until our mission has been accomplished. We have never lost a war and there is no reason to start now. (The Vietnam conflict was not a US started war, thus it does not count) I saw several reports yesterday on both right and left leaning news stations that had several experts estimating less than 100 al qaeda fighters left in Afghanistan. We have over 90,000 US troops plus allied forces hunting down those last 100 and we expect to be rid of them by the time we start pulling out next year. After that, I seriously expect us to move onto Pakistan and Yemen as that is where most of the remaining al qaeda fighters remain.

As for the woman killed when OBL took her as a human shield, she was guilty by association. Just as I would be if someone riding in my vehicle were caught with drugs, even if I had no knowledge of them what so ever.

So I ask you this, instead of jumping all over the good guys and attempting to show us the "errors" of our ways, how about you chastise the enemy (radical Muslims) for strapping bombs to little kids after pumping them full of opium. Or convincing innocent men that they should blow themselves up in the middle of a market where 1000 other innocent Muslims are. What about those who walk into a school and begin killing every child they see, just because they are learning things? Or the radicals who rape dozens of women in every village they pull into? Those are the real enemy's and the ones you should be talking bad about. Show a little love and appreciation for the freedom that the men and women of both the US and UK armed services fight every day to give you.

One last comment before I am done with this thread for good. My "undeserving" comment in the first paragraph was not aimed at the general Muslim populous, but rather directed at the tribal leaders and religious leaders that this money would ultimately go to. I label these leaders as undeserving because while they claim to "not be radicals" you do not see them nor hear of them publicly denouncing what the radicals are doing and preaching. This is the same reason the civilian deaths do not bother me as much as I guess it should. Until all of the self proclaimed non radicals stand up together and denounce what the radicals are doing, they are the same to me.

[knowledgegranted]

Like I said before, the two atomic bombings were far from the only bombings of Japan in WW2. They represent at most a third of the bombing casualties from US bombing.

However, perhaps we should look at it this way - why didn't we simply negotiate for a conditional surrender? The only reason the USA dropped the atomic bombs was to force Japan into an unconditional surrender. Diplomatic options were not even investigated.

It was agreed by the allies at the Casablanca Conference that no conditional surrenders would be taken during this war. That included everyone, but it just so happens that we were the only country at 'major' war with Japan.

[mDust]

Yea, lets invest in their society while ours is still in economic troubles. I for one think that is a horrible idea. With fuel prices going up, my property value going down and national unemployment still in the 9-10% range lets give undeserving others our tax dollars, while we borrow more from China to cover our own asses.

We are spending $6.7 billion per month in Afghanistan alone. Per month! Every 30 days another 6.7 billion dollars is spent and gone. Investing 'heavily' in their economy while slowly drawing down the number of troops would not cost any more than that. Do you think that not spending that 6.7 billion dollars a month will make gas prices drop or property values increase? I think it's right to give 'undeserving others' our tax dollars in the form of education, medicine, clean water, sanitation, and economic stimulus when they have nothing because we blew what little they did have to pieces. It's also right to give 'undeserving others' our tax dollars when it sways popular opinion in the circles that would otherwise be easily convinced to commit the violent atrocities against us and inocent civilians of which you later speak.

The answer here is simply to continue fighting until our mission has been accomplished.

Yeah, a $1.5 trillion war is probably cheaper since you're concerned with where our money is spent. We should probably borrow more from China to cover it.

We have never lost a war and there is no reason to start now. (The Vietnam conflict was not a US started war, thus it does not count)

We shot at them and they shot at us for 8 years, don't debase the sacrifices of Vietnam vets. Also, we did not win the Vietnam War.

I saw several reports yesterday on both right and left leaning news stations that had several experts estimating less than 100 al qaeda fighters left in Afghanistan. We have over 90,000 US troops plus allied forces hunting down those last 100 and we expect to be rid of them by the time we start pulling out next year. After that, I seriously expect us to move onto Pakistan and Yemen as that is where most of the remaining al qaeda fighters remain.

Then we will lose this war for the exact same reason we lost Vietnam. We can't take a hill and then abandon it immediately to go take another.

As for the woman killed when OBL took her as a human shield, she was guilty by association. Just as I would be if someone riding in my vehicle were caught with drugs, even if I had no knowledge of them what so ever.

This is ridiculous even if that woman did have the right to do as she wished. How is a hostage ever guilty by association?

So I ask you this, instead of jumping all over the good guys and attempting to show us the "errors" of our ways, how about you chastise the enemy (radical Muslims) for strapping bombs to little kids after pumping them full of opium. Or convincing innocent men that they should blow themselves up in the middle of a market where 1000 other innocent Muslims are. What about those who walk into a school and begin killing every child they see, just because they are learning things? Or the radicals who rape dozens of women in every village they pull into? Those are the real enemy's and the ones you should be talking bad about. Show a little love and appreciation for the freedom that the men and women of both the US and UK armed services fight every day to give you.

Who, in this thread, ever condoned any of those things? I want to stop and prevent every atrocity you've listed and more. Shooting an inexhaustible supply of mercenaries who are trying to feed their families in a war-torn land is not an effective approach. Did you know that the Iraqi and Afghan people did not hate the US before these wars? They do now. They both want us to 'get the hell out'. Funding for these terrorist acts often comes from Iran, the leaders of which would gladly pay a few hundred million dollars to keep us bumbling around, stomping on one country after another. It won't be long until every last person in the middle east despises us...do we really need millions more people in that part of the world hating us? Is it easier or harder to convince someone that hates us to perform terrorist acts against us?
I'm not ungrateful for what our troops have done. They've accomplished a lot in the last decade, however, they are not the solution to the grand problem of popular opinion. People don't fight people they like.

One last comment before I am done with this thread for good. My "undeserving" comment in the first paragraph was not aimed at the general Muslim populous, but rather directed at the tribal leaders and religious leaders that this money would ultimately go to. I label these leaders as undeserving because while they claim to "not be radicals" you do not see them nor hear of them publicly denouncing what the radicals are doing and preaching. This is the same reason the civilian deaths do not bother me as much as I guess it should. Until all of the self proclaimed non radicals stand up together and denounce what the radicals are doing, they are the same to me.

Investing in their economy does not mean handing over billions of dollars to the leaders and wishing them the best of luck. We would need to find the core industries of the region and help them get back on their feet. Or just start new industries if there are none. We need to give the businesses what they need to make and spend money. The first businesses need to be able to provide what the people 'need'. The people need food, water, medicine and construction companies to build infrastructure and most importantly: jobs. And instead of awarding multimillion dollar contracts to American companies to do all these things, it would make more sense to teach the civilian companies there to build what they need.
The fact that the people there are so easily convinced to do terrible things to others in order to survive or provide for their family speaks volumes about the level of desperation in the area. Would you watch your children starve to death / die because you can't afford medicine or would you save them by burning down a school and shooting the soldiers that killed your innocent neighbors in their sleep?
We haven't been able to solve our problems in that region with guns for 40 years. Why would that change now? When will people question the same failing methods we've been using for decades?