Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > The Fool wrote: > > > > > BTW, US-critical as we are over here, one thing that made the Dutch > > news > > > was a report that 25 Afghani civilians were killed when a residential > > area > > > was hit... > > > > Taliban propaganda. They also claim they shot down 6 airplanes. But > > where's the proof? The taliban ambasador shut up when asked what proof > > he had... > > Where's the proof that the US strikes didn't hit civilian targets? > > -j- > > Me: > It is, of course, impossible to provide. One of the basic rules of logic is > that it is impossible to prove a negative. It is literally impossible to > prove that no US weapons hit _any_ civilian targets. It is, however, > trivial to prove that one did, _if one did_. The fact that the Taliban > could not provide any proof means that it didn't exist.
I happen to agree with you, my point being, however poorly mistated, that simply calling any bit of news that comes out of Afghanistan "propaganda" is irresponsible. Why can't American officials be questioned and asked to provide proof, ESPECIALLY when they've engaged in poor behavior in the past? > Beyond that, however, people need to grow up. We _are_ going to hit > civilian targets. We're going to do everything we possibly can to avoid > this, but we _are_ going to hit civilian targets. It _is_ going to happen. > Anyone who says that the moral criterion is "no civilian casualties" is > living in a fantasy world. It is absolutely impossible to reach that > threshold of reliability. The most you can ask - all that the Geneva > conventions ask - is that soldiers make all reasonable efforts to avoid > hitting civilian targets. This we are, clearly, doing. i'd go further and say that the American military often ties its own hands behind its back in an effort to avoid civilian casualties. -j-
