BS: still more kids die---

Subject: BS: still more kids die---
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 05:35 PM

STILL MORE KIDS DIE UNDER UNDER NATO [??] "PROTECTION" IN AFGHANISTAN.

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 05:43 PM

And in Iraq. Six were mistakenly killed yesterday by the US....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: Gareth
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 07:18 PM

As you say Bobert mistakenly - as opposed to S H where it was deliberate.

(No doubt some poster will now post saying S H never killed kids deliberatly and as an act of policy, and that the US of A deliberatly targeted kids as a matter of policy)

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Dec 03 - 09:05 PM

In the case of the nine children killed in the air attack in Afghanistan, which was apparently supposed to target an individual reported to be in the vicinity, the thought that occurred to me was, is this what happens when the authorities feel it appropriate to rely on air strikes as a way of buying minimum risk of casualties of their own, at the price of a greatly increased risk of civilian casualties?

And I was also reminded of the occasion when Israel dropped a one tonne bomb on an apartment building in Gaza last year when 15 people, including nine children were wiped out, in what Bush at the time described as a "heavy-handed" action which "does not contribute to peace".

What made that parallel even more disturbing was the report his week that Israel trains US assassination squads in Iraq

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 12:43 AM

Gareth --you sure do have a droll perception of "justification" for the killing of children! Aye---Saddam killed kids. So did the British in the first ever concentration camps in Africa--and many thousands more in Dresden. So did Stalin's mob in Russia So did the US of A. in its quest for Noriega [ bet he has a nice t.v. in his "cell". And again USA in Vietnam. Hitler in the death camps. Israel every other day in Palestine. Pinochet.Bin Laden.The list is endless. Is this why you apparently think it's o.k. to kill children if you wear a white hat? Or just as long as you have the brass in your soul to issue an "apology"? Yuk!!!

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 10:34 AM

Boab,

in which way your thoughts are related to Gareth's post is a complete mystery to me.

In my country, the deliberate killing of a child (or grown up) is looked at differently and the respective punishments differ greatly. Not so in your country?

But the accidental killing of humans is still seen as something which is wrong, awful, lamentable and never 'o.k.'

Gareth has never said anything which could be interpreted this way. He has only mentioned the big difference between accidental and deliberate killing.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 11:27 AM

There's a distinction between deliberate and unintended killing. There's also a distinction between accidental death and culpable homicide or manslaughter.

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 11:42 AM

For me, there's a fine line between the deliberate killing of children and taking action which is likely to result in the deaths of children (or any other human beings for that matter).

wr

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: Nerd
Date: 11 Dec 03 - 02:12 PM

I would agree with weerover. There is very little difference between "I'm going to bomb this building in order to put down a rebellion. Gee, I sure hope there are no children inside! Well, if there ARE any children inside then at least their deaths will be purely accidental' (US Version)and "I'm going to bomb this building in order to put down a rebellion and I don't care if I kill everyone inside, including children (Saddam version)." The point is that unless you take specific actions to avoid killing children, then defining the deaths as accidental after the fact is pretty meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 12:13 PM

When I saw this thread title I knew what it was about before opening. Mudcat politicians are fairly predictable in this respect.

I could have been about the bombing campaign against the allied troops but also against modques and humanitarian targets in Iraq which kills more children per month than all allied mistakes together. It could have been about Taliban troops in Afghanistan who enter villages they consider too friendly to the occupation forces or not fundamentalist enough. They cut the throats so the killing mostly makes less noise. I could have been but somehow I knew it wouldn't be about these children killed.

I get the feeling that for many here a kid killed by Nato or USA is more worth a Mudcat thread than a kid killed by someone else. Some double standards there.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:13 PM

Wolfgang,

Quite !!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:24 PM

It seems to me that double standards arise when people regard the killing done by their own side as somehow less deplorable, and more inevitable, than the killing done by the other side.

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:34 PM

No Kevin, there is a hell of a difference between death by accident, misfire or what ever you care to call it, and a deliberate policy of murder. And what Wolfgang and myself are objecting to is that small vociforous element on the Mudcat who seems to think that Britain and America are the only villans in the world, and ignore other sources of evil.

War and violence are evil, sometimes, as in Iraq, it is the lesser of two evils.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: still more kids die---
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 06:17 AM

Sometimes war may indeed be the lesser of two evils. But frequently it is the greater. More frequently, I'd say. That doesn't mean the other evil isn't pretty great.

Once again, to quote what I already wrote: "There's a distinction between deliberate and unintended killing. There's also a distinction between accidental death and culpable homicide or manslaughter." I don't think anyone is suggesting a Coalition policy of going out deliberately and killing children, but rather that there may have been a failure to act in a way that minimised the risk.