Sunday October 28 12:33 PM ET

U.S. Says War on Target; Civilian Deaths Climb

By Lori Santos and Sayed Salahuddin

WASHINGTON/KABUL (Reuters) - A top White House official said on Sunday the war on terrorism was going as planned, but in Afghanistan (news - web sites) a wailing mother, newly widowed and childless, put a face and tears to the latest ``collateral damage'' from the fierce U.S. air strikes.

As U.S. jets bombed into their fourth week after last month's attacks on U.S. soil, ``collateral damage,'' the military term for accidental strikes on civilians, underlined the public relations difficulties facing Washington as it fought a war with few targets and no speedy victory.

Already facing rumblings for appearing bogged down as it seeks to oust Afghanistan's ruling Taliban and their ``guest'' Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), prime suspect in the hijack attacks that killed nearly 4,900 people, the United States faced criticism from allies and foes over civilian deaths.

White House officials tried to assure the U.S. public that the war was proceeding well, despite setbacks, but that it would be a lengthy effort.

``This is going to be a long process, so this is not one battle. This will be a series of efforts to make sure that Afghanistan is not a place where terrorists can be harbored,'' White House chief of staff Andrew Card told Fox News.

U.S. military operations were proceeding ``as we planned them,'' said Card, noting they were limited somewhat by the movement of food for refugees.

He was responding to recent criticism from Republican Sen. John McCain (news - bio - voting record), a military expert, and others urging Washington not to take half measures.

McCain said on Sunday, ``The immediate problem needs to be addressed with all the might of the United States military power, and issues such as (the Muslim holy month of) Ramadan or civilian casualties, however regrettable and however tragic, and other issues have to be secondary to the primary goal of eliminating the enemy and doing it with whatever methods are necessary to achieve it.''

CIVILIAN DEATHS

But as Washington was pressed for harsher action from one quarter, the issue of civilian deaths raised harsh criticism not only among the Taliban, but on the frontlines of the opposition Northern Alliance, a U.S. ally, after it too suffered casualties in the latest raids.

Witnesses in the Afghan capital Kabul said 12 civilians, including a man and his seven children eating breakfast, were killed after some of the most sustained raids of the three-week air campaign.

``What shall I do now? Look at their savageness,'' wailed the wife of Gul Ahmad as the bodies of the children were pulled from the smoldering wreckage wrapped in shrouds.

``They killed all of my children and husband,'' she said. ''The whole world is responsible for this tragedy. Why are they not taking any decision to stop this?''

North of Kabul, in territory held by the anti-Taliban Alliance, villagers said two people were killed and 10 others wounded when allied warplanes mistakenly bombed the tiny hamlet of Ghanikhel.

``The Americans come here, drop their bombs on Afghanistan and kill innocent people,'' an Afghan cleric said at the funeral of one of the dead.

``We cannot condone this, although we ourselves are guilty,'' Kamaruddin shouted, as around 100 men crouched in the morning sun in the bleak cemetery just outside the village. ``We were the ones to invite them (the United States) here.''

But Abdullah Abdullah, foreign minister of the Alliance, which controls about 10 percent of Afghanistan and which Washington hopes to use as a ground force to help topple the Taliban, said they were trying to improve coordination with U.S. forces to ensure air attacks hit Taliban positions.

-- Dubya's (crusade @ of. death), October 28, 2001

Answers

Sunday October 28 12:42 AM ET

U.S. Bomb Kills 10 in Afghan Village - Report

By Sayed Salahuddin

KABUL (Reuters) - U.S. warplanes pounded Taliban positions around Kabul Sunday but one bomb killed at least 10 people in a village controlled by Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s opposition Northern Alliance, television reported.

Waves of bombers hit positions of the hardline Muslim militia in the north of the capital overnight, witnesses said.

Qatar's al-Jazeera television said a stray bomb hit a village in the area but did not give its name. It quoted medical sources in the town of Jabal-us-Saraj as saying the village was located a few kilometers from the frontline.

It showed footage of destroyed houses, apparently in the village.

Jazeera said Italian medical staff operating in the area confirmed the attack, saying 16 people were killed.

A source at the Northern Alliance Foreign Ministry also confirmed to Jazeera the village had been hit, but gave no details.

The Taliban says hundreds of Afghan civilians have been killed by stray U.S. bombs or missiles.

The U.S. raids -- in retaliation for the Taliban's sheltering of the suspected mastermind behind the September 11 attacks in the United States that killed around 5,000 -- resumed at dawn Sunday, witnesses said.

``They have dropped eight or nine bombs since early morning,'' said a Kabul resident, adding the raids were less intense than those of the previous night.

U.S. warplanes have been pounding the Taliban frontline positions near Kabul to help the Northern Alliance opposition forces.

They alliance is battling many foreign fighters -- including Arabs, Pakistanis and Chechens -- who are among the fiercest and most determined soldiers in the Taliban militia.

The Taliban controls some 90 percent of Afghanistan and its lightly armed soldiers have not collapsed under the three-week-old U.S. air onslaught.

Washington's political campaign to replace the Taliban with a broad coalition of Afghans took a blow when the Taliban captured and executed opposition commander Abdul Haq, who had been trying to persuade Pashtun tribal leaders to switch allegiance.

Haq is expected to be buried Sunday. His family hope the Taliban will release the body for burial in the Pakistani border city of Peshawar.

The U.S. began military operations against Afghanistan on October 7 to flush out the wealthy, Saudi-born bin Laden, who has denied responsibility for the September 11 attacks.

The report of another stray U.S. bomb could renew calls from Muslim political parties and aid organizations for an end to the U.S and British bombing.

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf, under fire at home from Islamic opponents for dropping support for the Taliban, has said the bombing must be as short and targeted as possible.

The Jamiat Ulema Islam party has called a day of protests in Pakistan for Monday.

About 4,500 Pakistani tribesmen are expected to resume their march Sunday toward the Afghan border. They say they want to help the Taliban.

Buses, wagons, pick-up trucks and vehicles with Muslim activists carrying Kalashnikov rifles and rocket launchers set out for Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province Saturday.

The group was led by firebrand Islamic party head Sufi Mohammad, who has called for jihad, or a holy struggle, against the United States.

A Pakistani security official said the men had camped for the night 12 km (seven miles) from the border.

-- (oops@missed.again), October 28, 2001.

-- dead baby (getting even @ killing. babies), October 28, 2001.

-- more dead babies (how much revenge @ is. enough?), October 28, 2001.

and your point is?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 28, 2001.

By this reasoning, the deaths the terrorists inflicted were 100% "collateral" in nature. But we know this is not so. Those deaths were deliberate, and noncombatants were explicitly the targets. Now, just exactly WHOSE crusade of death are we dealing with here?

If the people of the middle east did not implicitly support this kind of death-dealing, the terrorists would have no base of operations and would be yeilded up in a heartbeat by the very "underground railroad" we're now fighting to stop. So long as they support flying airplanes into commercial buildings and killing thousands, they can damn well look at mutilated babies and *understand* the consequences of their preferences. The more such understanding, the better.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 28, 2001.

Flint,

Two wrongs NEVER make a right. You should know that.

-- Kenneth Starr (never @ never. never), October 28, 2001.

Yes, Flint, we must not fight back. That is wery, wery wong.

-- (squishy@goo.goo), October 28, 2001.

Starr:

OK, are you saying WE should go ahead and destroy THEM for no good reason, or are you saying that WE should not retaliate when they do it to US? Just curious. In other words, if only ONE wrong makes a right, who should commit it?

By my lights, what they did was wrong, unprovoked, and set the precedent. Response to such is not wrong by any moral system that has ever worked successfully. Actions have consequences. We are *obligated* morally, political, and philosophically to demonstrate exactly what they have EARNED in full measure. THEY instigated the crusade of death, we did not. When they can adequately explain the crimes committed by the individuals they killed, then we should stop. NOT before!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), October 28, 2001.

Flint, your argument has only one weak point, otherwise it is fully, 100% airtight as far as I can see.

As for the weak point: you clearly presume that "they" (by whom I can only assume you mean ordinary Afghani citizens whose children, relatives, friends and neighbors are being killed by US bombs) have some measure of control over the actions of their government or some effective means to oppose Osama bin Laden.

I am not certain that this is true. Do you have some evidence to support this conclusion?

Otherwise, it seems to me that it would not matter a bit what lessons "they" learn from the death of their children, relatives, friends and neighbors, since "they" could not put those lessons into effect.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 28, 2001.

YEAH MORE DEAD BABIES FOR THE LIBERALS TO CRY OVER. HOW MANY DIED IN THE PAST YEAR OF THE TALIBAN RULE HUH? HOW MANY WOMEN HAVE BULLETS IN THIER HEADS FOR WEARING THE WRONG VEIL. KEEP CRYING LIBS WE WILL KEEP PUMMELING THEM UNTIL THEY ARE ALL DEAD. FUCK THEM FUCK THE BABIES FUCK IT ALL. THEY STARTED IT AND BY GOD WE ARE GOING TO FINISH IT.

-- (pound@thelife.out.of.them.com), October 28, 2001.

"THEY STARTED IT AND BY GOD WE ARE GOING TO FINISH IT."

Americans have such a short memory! It seems you have already forgotten about 3 years ago when we lobbed 100 cruise missiles into Afghanistan.

LOL! You really are making yourself look like just another hypocritical repug scumbag!

-- (try@harder.dimwit), October 28, 2001.

We? Whos We? That was Kommrade Klinton who did that.. not "We" Dummy.

We? We means all those people who were in the tower from all over the world huh? Yeah its amazing how fair libs are when it benifts them.

-- (who@who.com), October 28, 2001.

Whoooohoooo another dead raghead in training. God I wish I joined the military so I could be over there kicking ass. If I ever get my chance to live my life over I am joining up. God Bless America

(and no im not joking I am proud to see this as an American I love seeing these assholes dead be it kids adults no matter to me)

-- - (-@-.com), October 28, 2001.

Yup, I hear you. They would feel the same way if they saw American Babies dead, why can't we be happy when our country kicks ass?

Fuck being P.C. I am very happy Kill em all.

-- ~~ (Dan@funkmasterflex.com), October 28, 2001.

"God I wish I joined the military so I could be over there kicking ass."

LMAO!! YOU AMERICANS ARE SISSIES! THE ONLY ASS YOU'RE KICKING IS THE LITTLE BABIES SHOWN ABOVE. I DARE YOU TO COME IN AND FIGHT AGAINST SOMEONE YOUR OWN SIZE, BUT I KNOW YOU WON'T BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL FAGS!

ROTFLMAO!!

-- (OSAMA@YO.MAMA), October 28, 2001.

So you are a Domestic terrorist?

-- (so@and.com), October 28, 2001.

Hate to say it but Osama Yo Mama has a good point. We've pulverized every square inch of sand in Afghanistan and now it seems our big tough military machine is afraid to go in for the real battle. They are dropping their bombs closer and closer to civilian targets hoping to scare out some fighters, but the only thing they are killing is civilians. It's really starting to look like we are just stalling off until the weather gets so bad that we can use that as an excuse to wait until next summer. Bet dollars to doughnuts we'll be hearing this through the media soon... "due to severe weather the Penatgon is going to hold off on sending in ground troops until next year". Bottom line is they are just chicken shits.

-- (U.S. is @ scared. to fight), October 28, 2001.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 28, 2001.

"BLOODY SUNDAY PROVES A TEST FOR US RESOLVE" headlines the INDEPENDENT.

"The US government insisted yesterday that its Afghan campaign was going according to plan, despite repeated bombing errors including the killing of seven children as they ate breakfast at home in Kabul."

-- (dubya@fucking.joke), October 28, 2001.

YAY!!! KICK ASS USA!

-- (-@-/-.com), October 28, 2001.

HAHAH MOTHER FUCKERS WE ROCK DEAD AFGHANS ASS!!! WHOOHOOOOOO DEAD DEAD DEAD

-- (fuck@you.com), October 28, 2001.

-- (Hawk@will never. grow up), October 28, 2001.

What a load of shit. We have FAR From pounded every inch of sand. We have a long long way to go. If you are a REAL American you will remember that WWI was not won in a week. You fucking Gen X'ers get mad when anything takes more than five mins. Whatsamatter it cutting into your time listening to brittney spears.

What a joke.

-- (What@load.com), October 28, 2001.

Excerpt from top post of thread (bold added): "This is going to be a long process, so this is not one battle. This will be a series of efforts to make sure that Afghanistan is not a place where terrorists can be harbored," White House chief of staff Andrew Card told Fox News.

It's not clear to me how one could achieve this, short of acquiring ironclad control of the largely mountainous 250,000 square miles that comprises Afghanistan (and how can that be done).

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 28, 2001.

There is no such thing as "an innocent American", you dumbfucks. This is happening to us (and will keep happening to us) because we are stupid, arrogant and greedy, and we deserve every bit of it. We have it coming, and it'll keep on coming until we learn our place in the world. "Superpower" is a totally meaningless word.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains, An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

~Rudyard Kipling

-- Totally (disgusted@american.stupidity), October 28, 2001.

The longer we are over there, and the more we try to dominate their area, the more terrorists we will create.

"What you resist, persists".

-- (self@perpetuating.evil), October 28, 2001.

"Totally",

"We deserve every bit of it". Speak for yourself, pal.

-- (NYFD@ground.zero), October 28, 2001.

Yeah, speak for yourself, Pal!

Maybe we are sort of in the habit of fucking the rest of the world for our own purposes, but we are entitled to do that because we are AMERICANS dammit! WE ARE SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER HUMANS!!

-- You tell 'em NYFD! (NYPD@ground.zero), October 28, 2001.

Ok -- my take on the killing of Afghan civilians...

First off, my guess is that there are relatively few complete innocents in Afghanistan.

There are civilians who aid, abet, house and feed the murderers. There are civilians who do this indirectly by producing for the Afghan economy -- some of whom are passive, unthinking followers of the regime -- others who activiely support it. There are civilians who hate us, some of whom danced and sang and otherwise celebrated the mass murder of New Yorkers.

There are civilians who are indeed against their government. But, to the extent they're found out, they're either dead or incarcerated. The true innocents over there are pretty much the very first victims of their very own Taliban.

There are children, but it's an inescapable fact of life that children benefit or suffer according to their parents' decisions. Until a child can support himself and make his own rational choices, he's got to live with his parents' choice of religion, country, housing, and practically everything else. This fact of life makes it even more important for parents who love their children to be conscientious about the type of government they support. Does this make the ultimate responsibility for their deaths more clear?

A child's dependence on his parents doesn't change in time of war. As Americans, we can't allow our reluctance to harm Afghan children to prevent us from defending ourselves and defending our own families and friends. I mean, look at the alternative: Hitler could have used a bodyguard of infants and thereby could have murdered every Jew in Europe knowing his enemies wouldn't dare fire at him.

Actually, true innocents should WELCOME an American attack on their country. They know they might be killed in the process, and even that they're (unfortunately) legitimate targets insofar as they're forced to support their dictatorial regimes, but they'll also know it's their only chance at freedom. You know, in WWII, occupied Europe WELCOMED American invasion, even though this meant that some civilians who actually resisted the Nazis would die in American bombings.

In sum -- we must NOT allow human shields to deter us from defending ourselves. Don't forget -- Osama burned our innocents alive as an end in itself -- and he still has a contract out on my life and the life of my kids. And I'll be damnned if I'm going to hesitate to shoot to kill him just because he's chosen to run off and hide behind an Afghan civilian.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 29, 2001.

"There are civilians who aid, abet, house and feed the murderers. There are civilians who do this indirectly by producing for the Afghan economy -- some of whom are passive, unthinking followers of the regime -- others who activiely support it."

Eve, by this reasoning, you are "indirectly" guilty of every crime committed by any branch of the US government (including the CIA), just because you participated in the American economy by going to work at your job. It wouldn't even matter if you actively protested those crimes, you'd still be guilty.

Since the US government has committed a number of crimes under international law in the past five decades, and has aided and abetted many criminal governments around the world, then, by your own reasoning, all the civilians in the WTC were "indirectly" guilty, too. After all, there they were - at work in the US economy - on the very day they were killed!

As one example of the very real crimes committed by those supposedly "innocent" workers in NYC -- the US government they passively supported instigated a coup in Chile in 1972 against a democratically elected government, and aided and abetted a Chilean government that murdered thousands of people. Those "innocents" trained death squads in Guatemala. They financed the Contras. They armed Jonas Savimbi. They overthrew the government of Iran. They illegally bombed Cambodia.

The problem with your reasoning is that applying it consistantly requires us to conclude that, if there are "few innocents" in Afghanistan, then there are even fewer in the USA.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 29, 2001.

I think we ought to just nuke Israel, and be done with it. Kill them all, the Jews and the Palestinians both. If killing terrorists is our goal that would go a long way toward ridding the world of most of them. Who needs them?

-- Wake Up (the_jews@are.the.real.problem), October 29, 2001.

LN,

To begin, with since innocents in a free country (the US) would remain unharmed by the government, while true innocents in a totalitarian regime would likely be murdered, tortured or imprisoned for life, I invite you to rethink your assertion as to there being fewer innocents in this country versus Afghanistan.

Next, can you cite any evidence that shows a deliberate intent -- malice aforethought -- by the U.S. to murder innocent civilians in any of these cases? In fact, it would be more to the point if you'd start with pre 9/11 Afghanistan; would you start with them?

Regarding our guilt -- you'd first need to answer my preceding paragraph. Then you'd need to show -- even if true in some cases -- that it was the rule in our foreign policy -- not the exception. In totalitarian regimes like under the Taliban, it's the rule -- no question. And for their reign of terror, you don't even have to go as far as new York. Just start by looking at the condition of their own country and the treatment of their own citizens.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 29, 2001.

My first paragraph above should have read "...proportionately fewer innocents..."

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 29, 2001.

Eve: Where do you get all this testosterone? Afghanistan has FEW innocents, IYO? If they didn't like the government,they should have just moved elsewhere? We're talking about folks who have lived in poverty all their lives here, Eve. Move WHERE? Pakistan and Iran closed the borders. SOME got through, but is life in Pakistan any better than in Afghanistan? Life in a refuge camp isn't much of a life, IMO.

Probably half of the people posting on this forum have NEVER been out of the US. Life in other countries/continents is simply something many people just read about. We live in one of the richest nations in the world, and half the population STILL chooses not to venture from the borders. What makes you think that people who can't even put food on their table would consider such an effort?

The more I read, the more I find that the survivors and relatives of victims in the WTC do NOT want innocent victims to die in revenge. You seem to feel otherwise, stating that THOSE people have YOUR family in their sites. On what do you base this conclusion?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 29, 2001.

Eve,

I find it humorous that you as an American feel you are entitled to judge the innocence of other people. As LN points out, just by paying your taxes you are supporting the biggest terroristic military machine in the World.

-- (keep your @ holier than thou. attitude), October 29, 2001.

Friend, that "terrorist military machine" has saved your sorry ass for your entire life. It is all that protects you now from murderous global anarchy.

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), October 29, 2001.

Eve: "...true innocents in a totalitarian regime would likely be murdered, tortured or imprisoned for life..."

Eve, I find your assertion to be rather unbelievable. You are stretching the word "innocent" as if it were synonymous with "opponent". Opponents to such regimes do get such treatment.

If you argue that the only way to maintain one's innocence when living under a regime that commits crimes is to actively fight that regime until it is overthrown, then I think you ought to consider all the ramifications of this argument. It could boomerang on you.

Eve: "Next, can you cite any evidence that shows a deliberate intent -- malice aforethought -- by the U.S. to murder innocent civilians in any of these cases?"

In order to make your case, you are narrowing the concept of "crime" to eliminate all crimes except "murder with malice aforethought". However, your original argument was about guilt and innocence, not about the relative severity of the crimes in question. One can be guilty of crimes without being guilty of first degree murder.

My point was not that overthrowing legitimate governments and replacing them with oppressive dictatorships was 1) better than, 2) worse than, or 3) the same thing as flying several planeloads of civilians into various buildings.

My point was that, by specifically defining "innocence" and "guilt" as you did, you were defining not just the guilt of Afghans in regard to 9/11, but simultaneously defining your own guilt by the same line of reasoning.

My point still stands. If you want to maintain your own innocence and the innocence of the victims of 9/11, while simultaneously maintaining the guilt of all the Afghans, then you will need to find a much sharper definition of guilt and innocence than you have offered.

Eve: "In fact, it would be more to the point if you'd start with pre 9/11 Afghanistan; would you start with them?"

In a country where there is no outlet for legitimate political activity, most inhabitants are intensely apolitical. They neither support nor oppose the government. They are not consulted or informed when government policy is made. They have no incentive to understand it. They are forcibly prevented from changing it.

They live for the most part in ignorance and powerlessness. The average citizen in a place like Afghanistan lives with government as a farmer lives with the weather.

To my mind, acquiring guilt requires the power to avoid guilt. I just don't see how the average Afghani who is not a member of the Taliban ever had the power to avoid the guilt you impute to them.

Eve: "Regarding our guilt -- you'd first need to answer my preceding paragraph. Then you'd need to show -- even if true in some cases -- that it was the rule in our foreign policy -- not the exception."

Suppose I commit a crime. Let's say I break into your house, break everything, defecate and urinate on the pieces, and then set fire to the debris. If I have never done anything like this before, then this crime becomes the "exception", not the "rule", som apparently there is no reason to believe I am guilty of a crime!

LOL! Good one, Eve!

The very fact that you are moving the goal line in this direction concedes that you are not able to win the game with the goal line in the current position.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 29, 2001.

Anita,

“Eve: Where do you get all this testosterone?”

Lol – good question! I dunno – it’s as if my body had a bunch stored up for a rainy day –- or maybe Y2K -- and it all let loose on 9/11! Hell, I'm still practically ready to enlist. I'll even tell 'em I could bring my own Herman's survival boots and Spam that I bought for Y2K; save 'em a few bucks. And hey -- maybe I can even persuade 'em there's a use for my 2-person crosscut saw I bought at Lehman's that 's still hanging on my basement pegboard, and still somehow lookin' brand-spankin' new.

“Afghanistan has FEW innocents, IYO?”

RELATIVELY few – as Nazi Germany probably had RELATIVELY few – for the reasons I stated above. That still allows for MANY innocents to exist there.

And yes, Anita -- good points about the poor being virtually trapped in Afghanistan – I agree and it’s very sad and frustrating to know this.

“The more I read, the more I find that the survivors and relatives of victims in the WTC do NOT want innocent victims to die in revenge. You seem to feel otherwise, stating that THOSE people have YOUR family in their sites. On what do you base this conclusion?”

Oh, absolutely no way do I want innocent victims to die! Where on earth did you get the idea that I did? All I’m saying is that Osama does have us in his sites and that in order to defend ourselves we may be forced to take an innocent life. But that’s our enemy’s responsibility. How do I know he’s got us in is sites? See this link...

Link

keep your,

“I find it humorous that you as an American feel you are entitled to judge the innocence of other people.”

I’m not pronouncing any such judgment on individuals; I don’t know any individual Afghans. I’m just trying to reason on general principles. What’s wrong with that?

“...just by paying your taxes you are supporting the biggest terroristic military machine in the World.”

Lol! Now THAT, of course, remains to be seen.

LN,

I stand correected on my equating innocents with opponents. I guess I assumed and meant that many innocents would BE opponents, and those would be murdered, etc. Sorry for the miscommunication.

“If you argue that the only way to maintain one's innocence when living under a regime that commits crimes is to actively fight that regime until it is overthrown...”

No way do I believe this. Of course there are innocents who are simply too oppressed, afraid, and/or intimidated to fight.

“In order to make your case, you are narrowing the concept of "crime" to eliminate all crimes except "murder with malice aforethought". However, your original argument was about guilt and innocence, not about the relative severity of the crimes in question. One can be guilty of crimes without being guilty of first degree murder.”

Regardless of how you may have read my previous comments, I’m deliberately simplifying this contrast to the intent to murder complete innocents (e.g., New York) versus the intent to avenge some perceived act of aggression, directed against the specific perpetrators (e.g., killing someone who’s murdered thousands of your neighbors and will next be coming for you and your kids – e.g., bin Laden).

“My point was not that overthrowing legitimate governments and replacing them with oppressive dictatorships...”

You've got an opportunity to be more specific here.

“...while simultaneously maintaining the guilt of all the Afghans...”,

When I asked you to “start with pre-9/11 Afghanistan, I was really interested to know what we had done to them to deserve the New York attack – sorry that I abbreviated it so much that my message apparently got lost. In response to this, though, you DID make some good points (as Anita did) about the probable powerlessness of many innocents there, although I’m not sure how you can be so assured that this represents the vast majority of the civilian mindset. Keep in mind that these are human beings, many of whom are capable of higher levels of thought, understanding and action than you may be attributing to them. In many cases, perhaps much higher.

“Suppose I commit a crime. Let's say I break into your house, break everything, defecate and urinate on the pieces, and then set fire to the debris. If I have never done anything like this before, then this crime becomes the "exception", not the "rule", som apparently there is no reason to believe I am guilty of a crime!”

First, you STILL haven’t shown me anything that would support that we (the U.S.) have planned and carried out any action with the sole purpose of murdering innocent civilians. But let’s take a walk on the wild side for the moment and assume for the moment you have. And maybe I should have made my points on this more clear. A totalitarian government is not a legitimate government. It’s nothing but a big, insitutionalized gang, and potentially far more dangerous than individual gangs in a free country. If this country through its own statements and de facto or de jure policy systematically murders its OWN innocents/opponents, terrorizes many others (of its OWN), and says it will murder our innocents simply because we’re “infidels” and then begins to carry it out, there’s a pattern -- a pattern of terror. And one that is utterly absent in the case of the U.S.(I will allow that, again, maybe you can point me to an exceptipon or two). How can you possibly be oblivious to this?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 30, 2001.

Forget it Eve, you're wasting your testosterone on these self-haters.

-- (Melvin Dumars@probate.court), October 30, 2001.

Eve, it would probably surprise you to know that I accept the current bombing of Afghanistan and the consequent killing of (in my view - completely innocent) civilians as unavoidable - and because it is unavoidable, I understand it is necessary. It is a necessity thrust upon us, not of our choosing.

OTOH, the Taliban chose to make us their enemy. They gave refuge and material support to those who make war on us. There is no question that we must destroy the Taliban. We cannot accomplish this goal by making fine discriminations between combatants and non-combatants each time a bomb is dropped or a bullet is fired. War doesn't permit that level of discrimination. Therefore, because we must destroy the Taliban, innocent civilians must die at our hands.

What I object to is the falsity of your claim that the dead children and mourning parents shown in the photos above were somehow guilty of a crime against us, merely by being Afghans and living under Taliban rule. Imposing a spurious and fictitious guilt upon them in order to rationalize the horror of what we did and continue to do, strikes me as a kind of moral cowardice - a whitewashing of your conscience. The truth of war is horrible. Innocents die.

A soldier would never look at those bodies and rationalize those deaths by pretending those people were somehow guilty. That pretense wouldn't survive the night. Those people were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. Soldiers know this. They live with it. They hate it. But they have to deal with it.

The least we can do is to accept a part of that burden ourselves instead of taking the road of cheap, easy rationalizations, like yours.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 30, 2001.

Omigod, LN, I NEVER claimed what you're stating. I think you need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

First off, The children and infants ARE innocent -- that they're innocent victims of their parents' decisions. I'm just pointing out that with regard to the adults, things aren't so black and white as some folks are prone to believe.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 30, 2001.

I said: "What I object to is the falsity of your claim that the dead children and mourning parents shown in the photos above were somehow guilty of a crime against us, merely by being Afghans and living under Taliban rule."

I was wrong. I apologize for mentioning the children as if you thought them guilty of any crime. Clearly, you do exempt the "dead children" from any guilt. I'm sorry. My bad.

However, your description of who is "guilty" included: "...civilians who [feed or house murderers] indirectly by producing for the Afghan economy..."

Since most Afghans, including children, do produce for the Afghan economy, apparently, this would include (more or less) all Afghan adults, 'merely for being Afghan and living under Taliban rule.'

You also said the children are "victims of their parents' decisions."

So, you are throwing guilt upon the "mourning parents" in those photos, both for the events of 9/11 in the USA and for the subsequent death of their children. I still say that's a cheap, easy rationalization. Those parents are NOT guilty of 'victimizing' their dead children, Eve - no matter how you slice it.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 30, 2001.

I like Eve, LN, and I was pretty startled to see her post what she did. IMO, she's trying to back-pedal on it now that she was met with less reinforcement of her beliefs than she'd hoped. I expected some here to say things like, "Nuke those desert rats", or "Kill ALL the sand niggers". That just comes with the territory. I didn't expect Eve to blame an entire country for the actions of ONE man.

It's MY problem, Eve. It's not YOUR job to live up to the expectations of others.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 30, 2001.

LN,

"However, your description of who is 'guilty' included: '...civilians who [feed or house murderers] indirectly by producing for the Afghan economy...'

No, I NEVER said or implied they were guilty. I tried to get across that many (not all) were probably not completely innocent. Look -- the Taliban torture their own citizens. I can post an article on it. To the extent a farmer is aware of this and could leave the country but chooses to stay and continues to feed the Taliban, then, yes, he's guilty. Guilty as the Taliban are? Well, I'll just say there doesn't seem to be a world of difference here.

Also I'm not throwing guilt on those mourning parents. How could I? I don't know them. They could have very well have been completely innocent. My comments are in generalities, and in no way were meant to cover them all.

Finally, any child who produces for the Afghan economy could normally not be expected to fully realize what he's doing; so they would be exempted from any guilt as well, with rare exceptions.

Anita,

I'm not sure how you see me backpedaling here. Could you elaboorate? Specifically what did I state initially that I retracted? Further, I NEVER blamed the entire country! How did you get this from what I wrote? I will say, though, that I blame the Taliban "government" (yes, I use the term loosely) for sponsoring bin Laden. Also, I do blame SOME citizens for voluntarily and knowingly supporting the Taliban. Do you feel that NO German citizens supported the Nazis? Look into the I.G. Farben company for starters, the makers of Zyklon B gas, which was used on the Jews. And see my farmer example, above.

Finally, to the extent we're really just after one guy, I think we're looking for a world of hurt in the long run. You need to get rid of governments that support terrorism. In essence, as I see it, bin Laden is just a soldier of the Taliban.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 31, 2001.

Hi Eve,
Your position regarding the guilt of those who do not leave Afghanistan seems to rest on dubious assumptions:

1) A person or family that decided to flee Afghanistan could anticipate smooth sailing in the country they entered.

2) There's a country bordering Afghanistan whose regime is in no measure more despicable than the Taliban (and therefore more deserving of tax revenues than the Taliban is).

3) The relative despicability of nations' governments can be accurately determined based on the scant information (misinformation?) that is publicly available.

4) Afghans in particular, have a reliable way of judging their government against those of other countries.

I'm interested in what act our own government might commit that you would find so egregious that you would leave the country. It's not that I want you to leave, I'm just trying to add a touch of reality to the discussion.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 31, 2001.

Hi Dave,

You raise good points. But my position allows for these possibilities, (although I may not have communicated this very well) and to the extent they impede the citizen’s efforts would correspondingly increase his innocence.

My whole position in a nutshell is simply that a citizen is not necessarily an innocent; that there are many shades of gray here. In fact, I’d argue that in some cases a given citizen would be more guilty than a given Taliban soldier.

And what act of our government would cause me to leave the country? The eradication of individual rights from the Constitution might do it. As to other specific acts -- well, give me some realistic examples and I'll respond to them.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), November 01, 2001.