I have been reading a lot of the news about Iraq & Afghanistan ever since before "we" went there.
Today I was reading
an article at the Baltimore Sun about an air strike.
Apparently, we were going after Ayman al-Zawahri and he wasn't there. Supposedly a bunch of strangers came to visit a man in a small village and this man's house was the target. The CIA thought he was al-Qaida. Who knows if he is?
Here are some statements from the article:
- ".. By their count at least 30 people died, including women and children..."
- "On Saturday, more than 8,000 tribesmen staged a peaceful protest in a nearby
town to condemn the airstrike, which one speaker described as 'open
terrorism.'"
- "Zaman, whose home was destroyed, told AP he was a "law-abiding" laborer and had
no ties to militants. He was not hurt but said three of his children were
killed."
- "Doctors told AP that at least 17 people died in the attack. But at one destroyed
house, Sami Ullah, a 17-year-old student, said he alone lost 24 of his relatives"
OK... I'd like to address these as I see them:
- Just like people expect "us" to lower numbers, would one not consider that this is an inflated number? Also, every friggin article states "including women and children". No shit! You drop a bomb on a village, there will be what is callously called "collateral damage". Why does "the media" need to point it out EVERY SINGLE TIME?
- Do these 8,000 people actually know anything about whether or not the target was actually valid? Would they rather we march a million-strong army through the streets like the USSR did? Whether you like it or not, airstrikes are the most humane way we can handle the situation. As far as it being terrorism: anything that makes you afraid could be considered terrorism these days. If this target was valid and the people who matter most (the ones doing bad things) realize that we can get to them anywhere, then I am glad that we are practicing this form of "terror" on the exact people we want to affect. Unfortunately, others will be affected too. If the majority, the innocent bystanders, realize that these people are targets, maybe these people will become pariahs and the innocent people will either make them leave their villages or at least leave the area, thus isolating them and making them easy targets. It sucks being in a country that has an active war waging, but I don't think the Afghanis or the Iraqis properly appreciate that this type of war allows them the closest semblance of a normal life as possible during such difficult times. The media never points that out, do they?
- Would you expect him to say "Phew! I'm so glad I skipped out on that. It would have put a damper on my plans to blow up a military base!". Of course the guy's going to say "I'm innocent" and then try to gain sympathy right after. Unfortunately, the statement would be the same whether he was guilty or not.
- So, who should we believe? Doctors? or one person? Who knows? Though this reminds me of another article (which I can't find) where, after a (non-coalition) bomb exploded in a neighborhood, stated that EVERY SINGLE house in the neighborhood lost a child. As heartless as this sounds, I don't believe him. For some reason, I feel it may be a cultural thing or something, it seems that the Iraqis (and possible others in the region) use exaggeration as a rule to emphasize things (Think Iraqi Foreign Minister...).
So, the whole situation sucks. I don't like that the world is where it is right now, but it always seems that the media, regardless of the origin, is always trying to do the "bleeding heart" thing. "Look at these unfortunate innocent people", "They didn't do anything wrong, the big, bad US did it."
When our own media vilifies our military for carrying out every single operation, how do we expect the world to have an educated opinion on things and just deal with the facts? Why is it that the only facts that are stated are ones that side against our military?
I'm sure some people will completely disagree with me. I hope that, if you do, you can reply here without resorting to inflammatory statements. This is a heated topic and we all know it can get tempers flaring. I would like to have a discussion on it if you are so inclined.
Tom