October 24, 2001

9:29 AM

Will pictures like this [not graphic, but disturbing] turn popular support against the bombing in Afghanistan? Or will stories like this bolster support for military action against the Taliban? What story sways you more?
posted by gazingus (57 comments total)

The story that sways me is still the one about Osama bin Laden killing something like 5,000 of my countrymen last month.

It's horrible that innocent people are getting hurt. The obvious solution everyone's forgetting is, Let the Taliban turn bin Laden over to us.

If he's outside their control, let them say so. But if they're merely unwilling to cooperate with us, well... We will make no distinction between the terrorists, and the regimes that harbor them.
posted by coelecanth at 9:44 AM on October 24, 2001

stories do not sway me, only the logical interpretation of facts.

I'm a bit short on all the facts but with the ones I do have I belive it's time to decrease bombings to air-support for ground troops so they can mop up the taliban and install a new government in Kabul.
posted by Mick at 9:50 AM on October 24, 2001

Neither will matter in the medium term. What needs to happen is for an alternative Afghan government to present itself, at which point the U.S. can pound Taliban forces. With any luck, this may be starting to happen.
posted by prodigal at 9:50 AM on October 24, 2001

look, if you don't make any distinction between these people and the terrorists that killed 5k people in NY, then you are just like them. JUST LIKE THEM. They did no disctintion between the US fucked up foreing policies and government and the inocent people who actually died and suffered.
posted by papalotl at 9:54 AM on October 24, 2001

"Unbowed by limited U.S. airstrikes, Taliban troops fired rockets from their mountain hide-outs into the middle of a crowded noontime bazaar here Tuesday, killing an impoverished, legless tea seller and a prosperous shopkeeper."

does this sound like a fairy tale to anyone else?

the second article didn't make clear to me why the taliban would shoot on Charikar; as revenge, or to try to dissuade the US from bombing them (the taliban)? it doesn't sound to me like US forces are located in this town.

can someone explain this to me?

it *does* sound like the Northern Alliance thinks the US forces are wimpy compared to the all-out assault they took from the soviets (and we know how well *that* worked).

I think it's important for pictures like the first one to be disseminated; it keeps the human cost of these actions in front of everyone, and that's a cost that must be factored into every decision that's made.
posted by rebeccablood at 9:56 AM on October 24, 2001

small children are getting killed? horrible yes, but remember at one point each of those people who died in the terror attacks was a small child.

Hand over Bin Laden. Admit you can't control him. To date the Taliban are acting as supporters, they thumb their noses, issue proclamations and statements, but still deny they were involved.

It wouldn't have to be this way, they could hand over the asshole, or cooperate and allow US troops to hunt him down if they can't control him. Instead their actions show guilt, for-knowledge and collusion.
posted by jkaczor at 10:09 AM on October 24, 2001

small children are getting killed? horrible yes, but remember at one point each of those people who died in the terror attacks was a small child.

Hand over Bin Laden. Admit you can't control him. To date the Taliban are acting as supporters, they thumb their noses, issue proclamations and statements, but still deny they were involved.

It wouldn't have to be this way, they could hand over the asshole, or cooperate and allow US troops to hunt him down if they can't control him. Instead their actions show guilt, for-knowledge and collusion.
posted by jkaczor at 10:15 AM on October 24, 2001

DAMN that 18 month old child for harboring terrorists. Probably let Bin Laden drink right from its milk bottle.

Don't think of it as a human being like our countrymen. Don't think of it as a victim of our own terrorism.

God Bless Our President for his moral stance. "We will make no distinction between the terrorists, and the regimes that harbor them." Don't ask me to explain how that's different from what the hijackers did. It just is.

Look, I'll spell it out for you. When they kill it is terrorism. When we kill it is justice. When we kill, our victims aren't "terrified", so it's not terrorism...it's just killing. What's terrifying about airplanes creating explosions? Sheesh. The Afghan people know we're right, so at heart they understand and accept our hired killers dismembering their children. Whereas our country and countrymen areinnocents by definition, so people doing bad stuff to us are "evil-doers". Pure and simple. My country, right or wrong.

Got it?
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:16 AM on October 24, 2001

Mick, i don't think they can just install a new government. mostly because it'd just be seen as a puppet regime of the west. but luckily they've thought of that :)
posted by kliuless at 10:17 AM on October 24, 2001

The concept of 'for the greater good' has done an excellent job of devaluating human life, including that of children.

"For the greater good..."

"There are always casualties..."

This sort of thing perpetrates that because it happens often, it is to be expected and accepted. Wrong. This picture--and others like it--need to get around, as much as WTC video clips. There are so many people who think 'for the greater good' that they forget to be humane, and this sort of thing is designed to get them emotionally.

There's nothing wrong with that. There's something wrong, though, when we can ignore the innocent deaths or justify them by comparing them to "our" innocents who died (in which case we feel almost forced to place more importance on the latter). It's all wrong. I'm not depriving our goverment of any of the share in innocent blood.

I don't think I'm the only one who wishes this would all just end already.
posted by precocious at 10:39 AM on October 24, 2001

Wow. In the time it takes to type this comment, a child in subSaharan Africa who was alive when I typed the first word will have died from drinking contaminated water by the time I type the last word. The same goes for reading this comment. A minute went by? say goodbye to another child who died from AIDS in subSaharan Africa.
Hard to track down pictures of them though-it's not where the action is.
Poor African kids. Poor Afghan kids. And don't forget the 2 year old American kid who was on that United Flight.
You know, there's really a lot of suffering going on in the world.
What is my moral responsibility amidst all this?
I don't know, gotta get back to work.
posted by quercus at 10:40 AM on October 24, 2001

Let the Taliban turn bin Laden over to us.

What many of you seem to fail to realize is that by all recent reports (and general common sense), the Taliban are virtually a part of bin Laden's organization. Without his money and training, they probably could have never taken power, and certainly couldn't keep it, by all accounts. I don't care if they hand over bin Laden tomorrow--ooh, we have one man! We've conquered terrorism now!! The Taliban must be destroyed.

It amazes me the effect that photos of injured children have upon some people. Was it better when you just READ that some civilians were being wounded/killed, but now that you've seen a picture or two, by god, it must stop!! ? War is not and never has been about fun and games. There are casualties. The question that must be determined is whether or not the objectives or "cause" of the war justify the damage done. Getting upset at seeing the damage directly and wanting to call everything off is hypocritical in the extreme...it's like you were so morally shallow that you never considered the nature or impact of the damage when you originally decided the war was necessary.

This, of course, does not apply to those who have been against it from the start, and there is certainly room to disagree about the value of the objectives and the cause. What burns me are those who demand the results but balk weak-stomachedly and unrealistically at doing what it takes to achieve them.
posted by rushmc at 10:49 AM on October 24, 2001

The trouble with both of these stories/pictures is that I have ceased to believe anything relating to casualties that comes from the American or Afghan press/government. Public opinion is so important to both sides of this conflict that they will say or do anything to make it look like the other side is slaughtering civilians
posted by bob bisquick at 11:00 AM on October 24, 2001

Quercus, I'd say You could make a good start by not trying to justify the deliberate death of poor afghan kids with the fact that people die and suffer all the time, and also not denigrating others for trying to alleviate future deliberate deaths where the action is.

"I don't know, gotta get back to work"

So what's your point? That we're practicing armchair sympathy? It's better than no sympathy because it's par for the course.

Bob Bisquick, we've slaughtered civilians. American media didn't say shit about the village of Karam. Rumsfeld said it was secondary explosions from an ammunitions dump, and that they weren't baking cookies in the tunnels nearby it. Meanwhile, the journalists who go and talk to some guy who's house is leveled in the middle of the village with a big hunk of metal that says fin-guided bomb on it are full of it, and pawns of the Taliban supposedly.
posted by zangpo at 11:06 AM on October 24, 2001

I'm still on the fence with our activity, by the way. I don't like deception about what actually happens though. Mistakes happen, but how many decrease the usefulness. Can't be sure what's real, it's true.
posted by zangpo at 11:15 AM on October 24, 2001

"at heart they understand and accept our hired killers dismembering their children"

Ah, nothing like inflammatory rhetoric directed at the soldiers. Always makes the argument more convincing. Make sure you spit on them and call them babykillers when they get home, ok?
posted by Cyrano at 11:21 AM on October 24, 2001

Of course, when our "moderate Muslim allies" see video clips of thousands of Americans being murdered, they dance in the streets. My guess is one hurt baby wouldn't be enough to gear them up for celebration.
posted by gimonca at 11:28 AM on October 24, 2001

rushmc: I think for many, one of the first coherent thoughts after the mind-numbing shock of the WTC incidents was, "There are going to be even more innocent deaths. And people are going to consider it justifiable."

You do have a point, though, about the pictures. Reading the articles merely made me queasy and sad (after a few weeks; any time before then, and all I could do was cry); seeing the pictures made me nauseated, angry, sad, confused and many other things.

I don't think that I'm the only one who's been against it from the very beginning. The concept of 'nuking the hell out of Afghanistan' just didn't seem like a viable option to some people, myself included. Am I hypocritical then for wishing there were some other way to bring OBL to justice without the deaths of even more innocent people? [Referring to them as "casualties" further dehumanizes them, making it somehow "okay" to murder them.]

zangpo: better than I could have put it, thank you.
posted by precocious at 11:29 AM on October 24, 2001

rebeccablood -- "'Unbowed by limited U.S. airstrikes, Taliban troops fired rockets from their mountain hide-outs into the middle of a crowded noontime bazaar here Tuesday, killing an impoverished, legless tea seller and a prosperous shopkeeper.'"

does this sound like a fairy tale to anyone else?

can someone explain this to me?"

Not a fairy tale, just a way of waging war. Several reports I've read stated that indiscriminate shelling was par for the course from both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance for many years. Along with torture, rape, and massacres, causing many innocent deaths.

Explain this to you? The Taliban know we can be swayed by the deaths of innocents, and will use this to erode US public support. They know it worked in Vietnam. Their leaders are not ignorant, but we seem to be.
posted by mooncrow at 11:42 AM on October 24, 2001

I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions about the nature of "innocence," precocious. Also, I think almost anyone would grant that there is a world of difference between "nuking the hell out of Afghanistan" and what we have chosen to do and are actually doing.

Pay attention, people: There ARE no civilians in war. There never HAVE been, and the pleasant fantasy that existed for a time that there were is no longer accepted by most of the world. It might be nice if there were. It might also be nice if our conflicts consisted of the leaders of the nations at war meeting in a wrestling ring to determine the victor, sparing both sides a lot of death and destruction. But it doesn't work that way. Which is why one should never choose war lightly--it's an all-out type of thing. But sometimes it may be the best or only way to resolve a situation. The expression is "war is hell," not "war is heck." It is not a civilized disagreement. It is an all-out, well, WAR, between opposing sides. Let's quit the fantasy and deal with what is.
posted by rushmc at 11:46 AM on October 24, 2001

That kid's not even dead. He's just hurt.

I tripped on the blacktop in preschool and got hurt worse than that. I've got pictures, too. Should I disseminate them in an attempt to get people to notice the atrocity of playgrounds?

War sucks. Get used to it. But how about a little perspective here, people?

Focusing on individual accounts of tragedy, while emotionally stirring, never negates the necessity of focusing on the bigger picture. You know, "forest for the trees" and all that. Will the ends justify the means in this case? We can only hope. But you're going to have to do better than a crying baby with blood on his forehead to take away my desire to see Al-Qaeda on its knees.

If you're looking for individual accounts of tragedy, there are about 5,000 stories of your own countrymen you can find and read. That should keep you busy for awhile.
posted by David Dark at 11:57 AM on October 24, 2001

zangpo, I don't know what you read into my words, but I assure you i am not trying to justify anyone's death. I don't even agree with bombing Afghanistan right now ferchrissake.
I have always been interested in the plight of Africa, however, and always wonder why it doesn't receive more attention. Why won't there be any pics on Yahoo of the 35,000 (!) kids who die in Africa today? (I'm not making that number up) That's a big pile of corpses.
In the scheme of things, even if the US kills a 1000 Afghan kids a day, they're not even going to have to work overtime at the coffin factory.
My moral confusion-yes it's real-should I sell my computer and donate the $ to Oxfam? How have you resolved this? I'm interested.
Why does the world pay attention to a death by bombing and ignore death by contaminated water?
posted by quercus at 12:07 PM on October 24, 2001

there's a philosopher who asks such questions...
posted by kliuless at 12:20 PM on October 24, 2001

<naive, unfashionable ideals>

rushmc: I'm using the most widely accepted definitions of 'innocence,' as per any dictionary you'd care to pick up (barring the the lexicon you're using, which seems to say that innocence is something that exists only in the country in which you live, and never during war-time.)

Semantics aside, please spare me the military propaganda, which is, IMHO, the fantasy. What is is that there are, in fact, innocent civilians in every war - it's just somehow okay to kill them because, well, it's either them or us. Because, well, there are always "casualties."

Perhaps if less people were of the belief that war was the only and "best" option, it wouldn't be an option at all.

</naive, unfashionable ideals>
posted by precocious at 12:20 PM on October 24, 2001

"I think almost anyone would grant that there is a world of difference between "nuking the hell out of Afghanistan" and what we have chosen to do and are actually doing."

That's absolutely true, but according to your next statement, "There ARE no civilians in war," what's would it matter even if we were nuking them?

It isn't considered, by most people, morally wrong to kill a combatant during war. So what you're saying is that it isn't morally wrong to kill ANYONE in war. Thus, nuking would be fine. Mass slaughter of civilians is fine. All that is ok, because EVERYONE should be considered a combatant. And if that is true, then what happened on Sept. 11 wasn't terrorism, but war. The men who killed all those people were merely soldiers. Is that actually how you see them? I doubt it.
posted by Doug at 12:21 PM on October 24, 2001

quercus, my guess is that the world can ignore the contaminated water because that is death by negligence, whereas the death of civilians in Afghanistan is death by deliberate action.

Before anyone jumps on that, I don't mean that the US is setting out to kill civilians, just that the bombing is a deliberate action which can be stopped, started etc by choice.

How many Afghans need to be killed before the US should also be regarded as a terrorist state? 5000?
posted by snowgum at 12:22 PM on October 24, 2001

Well stated, rushmc. I'm all for limiting casualties of non-combatants in a war, but this fairy tail notion that war has become "civilized" to the point of eliminating the death of civilians has never made sense to me.

Further, as per the general topic of discussion in this thread... I support this conflict. I supported it before I saw the pictures, and I continue to do so now. I've already *seen* these pictures, and so have all of you--they exist from every war that's been waged since the development of photography.

Even in "modern" warfare, no amount of technology will change the fact that dropping thousands of pounds of explosives from thousands of feet in the air has a possibility of raining death from above on anyone in the general vicinity of the explosion, cruise laser guided smarty-whatsits and GPS this and that notwithstanding.

Robert E. Lee wasn't kidding when he said, "It is good that war is so terrible, otherwise men would grow fond of it." Warmongers and peaceniks alike realize how terrible those photographs are, and regardless of moral affiliation, no one applauds them. It is these photographs that keep rational men from waging war as the first tactic in disagreement. But when forced into conflict, and all other solutions have failed, war is the one option left, terrible or not.

Although folks are absolutely entitled to disagree with me, in this case, I don't see another solution.
posted by Swifty at 12:25 PM on October 24, 2001

I see, Quercus, I was afraid that I might have read something into your comment that wasn't there. I wasn't sure, but went ahead in misunderstanding. I thought you were dismissing the current debate over our actions over there since it was very little compared to more serious blights of human tragedy. I apologise. I see you are genuinely concerned with suffering.

You're right about visibility.

My only solution is to work to cut off the causes as much as I am capable, cultivate a willingness to do so in myself, encourage others to do the same, and point out such causes. I need to work harder on it.
posted by zangpo at 12:29 PM on October 24, 2001

quercus: I see your point. At the current moment, somewhere a woman is being raped, someone's dying of aids, a fatal car accident just occurred, someone was just shot down in a drive-by. There is suffering everywhere, at all times.

As it's impossible to address all of those things at once with any hope of effectiveness (in any forum), we can only address one thing at a time. This thread, at this particular time, is about one thing in particular. Throwing other things into the mix only seems to devalue it, though.
posted by precocious at 12:45 PM on October 24, 2001

you're going to have to do better than a crying baby with blood on his forehead...

I bet your government is taking care of your request
posted by papalotl at 12:46 PM on October 24, 2001

I know this is a really basic question, but here goes. For those posters opposed to the war: what do you suggest is the correct response?

I'm truly interested. I think the war is just fine. (I'll pass on that argument for now.) But if I let myself worry a bit, I think that as time goes on it will only be easier for smaller groups to pull off larger attacks on the US. What are our alternatives?
posted by Wood at 12:47 PM on October 24, 2001

Why the pacifist desire for inaction makes no sense.

The Taleban is Al Qaeda, their government is only recognized by Pakistan - and barely at that. I really, really wish that we had "bad guy" bombs - but no such thing exists yet.

I'd like to think that this kids' generation will be better off for us being involved in this operation than if they grew up under the Taleban.
posted by owillis at 12:59 PM on October 24, 2001

Why does the world pay attention to a death by bombing and ignore death by contaminated water?

Ratings mentality.
posted by rushmc at 1:00 PM on October 24, 2001

One of the most insightful things I'd read immediately after the attack was from Orson Scott Card.

And before we label our enemies as monsters, let's remember that we, too, have bombed people who were innocently going about their business, without a declaration of war and with no meaningful military objective. We won't be making war against our enemies because they are evil and we are good. We will be making war against these people because they are killing Americans and our allies, and we have to make them stop.

Civilians are going to die no matter what, but everyone dies of something at some point. This is a war that America was dragged into, and if we don't take measures to protect ourselves Americans are going to die.

Is an American worth more then an Afghan? No, but that doesn't mean that Americans should lay down for slaughter, either.

These deaths don't bother me, but honestly neither did the ones in NYC. Maybe that makes me Amoral or something, but at least it's spared me from the ludicrous bleeding-heart moral stress apparently being felt by some of the posters here.
posted by delmoi at 1:01 PM on October 24, 2001

Before anyone jumps on that, I don't mean that the US is setting out to kill civilians, just that the bombing is a deliberate action which can be stopped, started etc by choice.

Well actually, unclassified military memos uncovered through the freedom of information act revealed that during the gulf war the bombing campaign was designed to create mass epidemics.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:05 PM on October 24, 2001

barring the the lexicon you're using, which seems to say that innocence is something that exists only in the country in which you live, and never during war-time.

Please show me where I have said that innocence is something that exists in my country. And if you cannot, I would appreciate it if you would limit yourself to only attributing to me statements which I have actually made.

It is the concept of "civilian" which I am disputing. We all represent and support, to some degree, our countries and their values. Just become certain people have been designated--through self-selection or otherwise--as combatants, appointed to defend (or attack) through violent means, does not let the rest of us off the hook in any sense. "Oh, all that war stuff, you know...that's for those soldier boys to deal with...I'm above all that...and immune to its effects...." You may prefer the feeling of safety in your self-styled cocoon of non-participation, but the simple fact is, when your country goes to war, you are at war, period. You may disagree with it, argue against it, distance yourself from it, but so long as you choose to retain citizenship, your membership designates you a combatant, albeit one far from the front.
posted by rushmc at 1:09 PM on October 24, 2001

Swifty: last I checked, it was still possible to get past American airport security with box-cutters and/or sharp plastic items. There are other things we can do outside of "smoking Bin Laden out," which, combined with the current bombing, seems more like a temporary solution than anything. Taking OBL and as much of the Taliban out as we can isn't putting a dent in the amount of potential enemies who have the desire or resources to hurt us.

This war is pretty much about appeasing American citizens now, because the only other option (inadvertently answering Wood's question) in my estimation would be covert infiltration (no, I don't believe in out-and-out inaction), and that would just take far too long and expend far too much effort.

It's easier to just lob missiles and hope we're only getting the bad guys. And as everyone knows, easiest = best.
posted by precocious at 1:12 PM on October 24, 2001

Aside from all the above stuff, the picture is still hard to look at when you have a kid just older than that, and he looks just the same when he sleeps.
posted by adampsyche at 1:17 PM on October 24, 2001

I know this is a really basic question, but here goes. For those posters opposed to the war: what do you suggest is the correct response?

Generally there are a number of responses that are brought up, primarily because our bombing is rather like bombing Sicilly in response Mafia attacks, or bombing Columbia in response to the cocaine drug trade.

The alternative methods of response include:
1: Developing a broad-based intelligence and law enforcement coalition to stop the movement of terrorists accross borders and dry up funds. Unfortunately it looks like our bombings have to some degree increased sympathy for Al Queda in already fragile countries in the region.

2: Create a plan of economic development that would hopefully reduce the level of tensions between the U.S. and Islamic countries.

3: Adopt energy conservation measures that would reduce our dependence on Islamic oil supplies. This would give us some economic freedom so that we don't feel compelled to play favorites among brutal anti-democratic fundamentalist islamic theocracies.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:17 PM on October 24, 2001

That's absolutely true, but according to your next statement, "There ARE no civilians in war," what's would it matter even if we were nuking them?

It isn't considered, by most people, morally wrong to kill a combatant during war. So what you're saying is that it isn't morally wrong to kill ANYONE in war. Thus, nuking would be fine. Mass slaughter of civilians is fine.

I don't see that the one necessarily follows from the other. If the only way to win a war is to nuke the other side, and the costs of losing are deemed to be worse than the price of winning through nuking, then I think nuking is "fine." But the point of a war is to achieve whatever objectives prompted the war initially. Minimizing casualties (on both sides), it seems to me, is and should always be a secondary consideration of high importance. Therefore "mass slaughter of civilians" should always be a last resort, not a first. As should "mass slaughter of soldiers" (which is where commanders of WWI and WWII went morally adrift).

And it seems clear to me that in the current action, the U.S. is trying very hard to minimize ALL deaths. The point is that it is not possible to minimize them to ZERO, and that it is foolish and counterproductive to attempt to minimize them to the point where they interfere with your achievement of your objectives--i.e., "winning." In doing so, you merely extend the conflict and do greater harm in the long run.

And if that is true, then what happened on Sept. 11 wasn't terrorism, but war. The men who killed all those people were merely soldiers. Is that actually how you see them? I doubt it.

Clearly, in their minds, and within their society, they were soldiers. Who am I to question that and impose my definition of "soldier" upon them?? Their leaders had openly declared war upon us--is it their fault if we chose to brush those declarations aside as silly and unworthy of response? By OUR cultural definition, their acts are those of terrorists. Frankly, I'm far less interested in the semantic debate than I am in the determination that such actions are wrong and so contrary to our society's values that we will not permit them to reoccur, to the degree that we are able.
posted by rushmc at 1:22 PM on October 24, 2001

4. Give them pancakes.

sorry....had to be done.
posted by adampsyche at 1:24 PM on October 24, 2001

It devalues it, precocious? sorry-but why? Does it devalue 5,000 deaths on September 11 to note 7 times as many children died that day in Africa? i don't think so-maybe if we cared about totally preventable deaths when there was no big drama going on-we could avoid these big dramas?
Everyone knows what's going on in Afghanistan now, and even its internal politics.Maybe if we paid attention to September 11, we would be in better shape today?
Can anyone tell me something that happened in Gabon yesterday? How about the last 6 months?
Does anyone know at least 200 villagers have been shot and set on fire in Nigeria since Monday night? Does this even matter? Sorry to bring it into this thread-show me the thread on Nigeria-I'll post it there-
I saw this poster asking what stories affected you? Thought I would mention the stories you never hear too.
posted by quercus at 1:24 PM on October 24, 2001

Aside from all the above stuff, the picture is still hard to look at when you have a kid just older than that, and he looks just the same when he sleeps.

It is also hard to look at when you have no children at all, FYI. Empathy is a laudable and normal human trait, and it is very useful in understanding other people and societies. It makes for rotten strategy, though. How does it help you figure out how to deal with that boy's father, who might well be very willing to kill your son in the name of some idea or ideal which he values higher than either child?

Few people ever want to see harm come to any child. But we all suffer the fortunes and misfortunes of the lottery of birth. And until the world advances dramatically from where it is, children will continue to suffer with, without, or despite our involvement or intervention. The way to decrease that suffering, it seems to me, is to address the underlying circumstances which produce or worsen it, not to allow our horror at each individual case study to weaken our resolve to make things better for as many as we can.
posted by rushmc at 1:34 PM on October 24, 2001

quercus - my point was simply that I could see where you were coming from, but to every thing there is a season. This thread is about one thing, you're going off-topic, and not doing much of a service to either topic of conversation. But please, start a thread on these matters (which are just as important), and I and others will be there.

kirkjobsluder - much better than I could do. Thanks.

Re: everything else - futility suggests I bow out and move on.

Peace (literally), pre.
posted by precocious at 1:37 PM on October 24, 2001

It is also hard to look at when you have no children at all, FYI. Empathy is a laudable and normal human trait, and it is very useful in understanding other people and societies. It makes for rotten strategy, though.

Agreed. All I can say is that I was reminded of my son when I looked at that. I spoke from the heart and not from the intellect, and you are right, it does make for a rotten strategy.
posted by adampsyche at 1:47 PM on October 24, 2001

For those scoring at home an unable to get their perspectives screwed on straight:

Talliban: Intentially target and murder more than 5,000 men, women and children.
US and Brittish: Intentially try to avoid killing of any civillians.

US and Brittish: Go into angst when they see image of one injured child.
Talliban: Celebrate in streets after Twin Towers collapse, killing thousands of innocents.

Those of you who keep trying to intellectualize your opposition to this campaign aren't deluding anyone -- except yourselves. Sometimes it is a battle between good and evil. You can try and make it more complicated than that, but it really isn't.
posted by darren at 1:52 PM on October 24, 2001

"human kind / Cannot bear very much reality."

You can try and make it more complicated than that, but it really isn't.

And all blanket generalisations are stupid.
posted by holgate at 1:57 PM on October 24, 2001

Hey Darren, just a little tip, bud: That baby isn't part of the taliban. Just thought you should know. When we're talking about civilians, we aren't talking about Osama Bin Laden. We're talking about people just doing their thing, trying not to get killed. Of course, you believe we're involved in some moral and epic battle of good against evil, so I dunno.
Rush, all I can say is, do you think what we're doing is going to "make things better for as many as we can?"
posted by Doug at 2:46 PM on October 24, 2001

All I can say is that I was reminded of my son when I looked at that. I spoke from the heart and not from the intellect

And I hope you don't think I was trying to demean or lessen that reaction. I would have nothing but contempt for anyone who looked at a picture like that and thought ONLY "Afghan casualty" and not "little boy."
posted by rushmc at 3:02 PM on October 24, 2001

Rush, all I can say is, do you think what we're doing is going to "make things better for as many as we can?"

I think it's a start. Whether we will do the things necessary to build upon it and really make a significant long-term difference remains to be seen. But just in the short run:

1) The world will be better off if these destabilizing factors can be controlled or removed;

2) The West (including the U.S.) will be better off with a lessened threat of further action by these particular terrorist groups; and

3) The people of Afghanistan will be better off with some other government than the Taliban.

I think these three points are pretty clear. Of course, one can still argue about whether our actions will inflame others to commit terrorist acts, etc., etc., and whether the world as a whole will be better off or worse off because we have undertaken these actions. But such issues are vague and hard to quantify. One could equally argue the long-term good done by defending democratic ideals in a visible way vs. turning away from them, as we have done all too often. Such things make for interesting discussions, perhaps, but it seems more fruitful to stick to specifics in trying to answer your question, and I think my points above serve to do that.
posted by rushmc at 3:09 PM on October 24, 2001

Have any innocent buddha statues been hit in the bombing?
posted by thirteen at 3:11 PM on October 24, 2001

nope, those were all removed from Afghanistan a while back..

Y'know, in Afghanistan the society has always been very focused around tradition - one of these is that you never do anything to dishonour your guest, no matter what. So, if bin Laden is simply their guest and not indeed in charge of them as some seem to think, they wouldn't turn him over for that reason alone - besides, innocent until proven guilty, right?

Here's where the evidence comes in - apparently we know its bin Laden behind this all, sure as rain. Where's the evidence? Its there, but its sensitive, so it can't be released to the public and therefore we have to trust the CIA/FBI/US - does it strike you that the Taleban wouldn't be that trusting of the US for some odd reason? Thats also why people in the Middle East are so angry - take Pakistan for example, all they see is apparently foundless US claims that Bin Laden did it, so thats why they're blowing up the rubble in Kabul - they don't trust the US government like all US citizens do (come on, you all do, right? :), so they're bloody pissed off, hence riots etc

Oh, back on topic. Isn't it interesting how the US are only targetting the non-Afghans on the frontline? So in fact, the Taleban soldiers are being deliberately not killed, only foreign (arab/pakistani) soldiers + civilians (accidental though it may be).

My personal view is that no man has the right to take anothers life as life was given by God, and only God has the right to cut it short in that way - which of course means that I subscribe to Qu'ranic law (as its the rulebook of God, naturally), which states that as an absolute final extreme one may kill to protect oneself. This ain't a final extreme, and civilians ain't threatening us - this may be an unfortunate side effect of bombing, but it sure as hell ain't unavoidable.
posted by Mossy at 4:13 PM on October 24, 2001

take Pakistan for example, all they see is apparently foundless US claims that Bin Laden did it


Of course, a good portion of the people in Pakistan have their heads screwed on right, but normal rational people doesn't often make for compelling evening news or sweeping generalizations.
posted by owillis at 7:31 PM on October 24, 2001

the second article didn't make clear to me why the taliban would shoot on Charikar; as revenge, or to try to dissuade the US from bombing them (the taliban)? it doesn't sound to me like US forces are located in this town.

can someone explain this to me?


Charikar is controlled by the Northern Alliance. The Taliban are at war with the Northern Alliance. The point of the article was that the Northern Alliance thinks we should be bombing the Taliban constantly, so they don't have the opportunity to attack.
posted by electro at 8:40 PM on October 24, 2001

Empathy is a laudable and normal human trait, and it is very useful in understanding other people and societies. It makes for rotten strategy, though.

I disagree. The ability to empathize with your enemy and to get into his mind is critical to good strategy.

For instance--those of you who have children, or younger siblings, or close young nieces and nephews. Imagine that that you were that child's parent. Or this one's. Or this one's. Or any of these. If you didn't hate America before this, you sure as hell do now.

We're not killing terrorists. We're just creating the next batch.
posted by shylock at 11:55 PM on October 24, 2001

the spread of propaganda does little to inform us of much of anything.
Questions I have pertain to:

1) how a society like the USA could have such a complacent and/or casual attitude towards genocide. From what I've observed,Thats what will happen. An estimated 2 - 3.5 million afghanistan civillians will die if The World Food Program isn't allowed to reconvene humanitarian aid attempts (i.e. sending them food) immediatly and to the capacity which is needed .There are few weeks left before the onset of winter. The US government is responsible for this. Is this the retaliation we need?

2) Does the US have substantial evidence implicating someone..anyone? Its unrealistic as it is common for "terrorist cells" to operate on the principles of Leaderless Resistance (non-heiarchic networks).

3)What of "high culture", and the attitude the US government permeates towards international law? Branded, a "war on terrorism", but the US gov't cannot really use the UN judiciary because the US doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of international institutions. So it can't go to them. It has rejected the jurisdiction of the World Court. It has refused to ratify the International Criminal Court. As if there was no need for evidence anyways, because the Omnipotent conquerors of the earth (thems with the most weapons of destruction) say it's so.


4) Low Intensity Warfare... the military's official terminology for USA style terrorism. Again this question is related to complacency and casual attitudes. The reason there is so much to be afraid of in the middle east is that we armed and trained (and continue to do so) the major "players". I'm thinking of Israel specifically as the fate of palestine is an integral part of the equation here. Israel is entirely without limitation or diminution sponsored by the USA. We are talking *billions* of dollars in armament? Why?

and now an emotional perspective: Pictures of suffering children are worth your empathy and something greater. cognizance maybe. introspection...
posted by slappy at 6:57 AM on October 25, 2001