July 6, 2007

WHO Killed Them?

Hatched by Dafydd

In this otherwise pleasant article about us killing 100 Taliban in Afghanistan today, I stumble across this jarring sentence:

Both a U.N. and the AP count of civilian deaths this year show that U.S. and NATO forces have caused more civilian deaths this year than Taliban fighters have.

I beg to differ. When NATO drops bombs on Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters who are shooting at NATO or Afghan troops, and some civilians are killed -- who would you say "caused" those civilians to die: NATO or the insurgents?

The answer is the insurgents... because absent their incessant attacks, murders, and random use of explosives, we wouldn't be shooting at them in the first place; and the civilians wouldn't have died.

It's a very simple syllogism: Suppose a gunman takes a bunch of kids hostage and forces them to act as human shields, while he starts shooting at another group of children who are trapped in his line of fire. The police, who have no option, must return fire, wounding the shooter and also four of his human child shields.

It's entirely possible that the gunman, who might be a lousy shot, only managed to kill three kids before he was brought down. Thus, AP could argue (trying to keep a straight face) that "the police caused more deaths of children in this incident than the sniper did."

Which is technically true... but of course, without the sniper opening fire on his child victims, the police wouldn't have shot any kids at all! He, not the police, is the actual "cause" of the deaths.

This is precisely why we have here in California (and probably in every other state) the "felony murder rule," which states that if a death occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony, then each and every participant in the felony can be found guilty of murder... even if the victim was accidentally killed by a cop or some other person. Or for that matter, even if, e.g., an old man is so terrfied by the robbery that he has a heart attack and dies.

In other words, if an armed robber holds up a liquor store, and the owner gets into a shootout with him, and the owner's daughter is killed in the crossfire -- then the robber can be found guilty of murdering her, even if the bullet that killed her came from the gun of the store owner.

The reason should be obvious: If that SOB hadn't tried to rob the liquor store in the first place, the owner would not have gotten into a gunfight and the girl would be alive.

Evidently, this is a foreign concept to AP; for it doesn't appear to have occurred to them that when terrorists surround themselves with human shields, then they are just as responsibile (morally and legally) for those deaths as they are for the people they themselves kill directly.

Therefore, it is logically impossible to say that "U.S. and NATO forces have caused more civilian deaths this year than Taliban fighters have," when every last one of the deaths "caused" by American and NATO forces occurred as a direct result of an unlawful Taliban or al-Qaeda attack. (In addition, our side goes out of its way to avoid killing civilians; the irhabi (terrorists) deliberately target innocents -- Moslem innocents -- in direct defiance of Islamic law.)

AP should be ashamed of itself -- assuming that anyone who works in the elite media is capable of feeling shame.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 6, 2007, at the time of 11:59 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2234

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference WHO Killed Them?:

» Another "Wedding Party"... Well, Not Quite from Big Lizards
During a bulletin-board discussion the other day, a poster argued that whenever I talk about Taliban deaths, I ignore civilian casualties. "How do you know those were all Taliban?" he demanded; "they might all be civilians that we killed by... [Read More]

Tracked on November 6, 2007 6:36 AM


The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I noticed the same thing myself a few days ago in an article like this. I mean it is obvious the Taliban are bringing fire down on civilians for just this purpose.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 7, 2007 3:23 AM

The following hissed in response by: Seaberry

Good point! I'm going to save this post and send it to some of these mis-reporting reporters and editors!

The above hissed in response by: Seaberry [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 7, 2007 8:15 AM

The following hissed in response by: Fritz

Surely you don't expect to change their minds? I mean really, how can you expect the AP, or the UN, to draw such an obvious conclusion. After all, they are the ones who believe that the US had no reason to to try to stop anyone, and as for Iraq, well dear Old Saddam was the UN's kindly old uncle and was simply giving them a few presents because he loved them, that is until the big bad US interfered. Think how horrible it must be for them to have to observe a reasonably successful country by anyone's standards when they have managed to screw their own backyard up so badly. Nope, in the eyes of the UN or AP it must be the fault of the US when anyone gets hurt or killed. We are successful and they are not and no argument will ever convince them of the truth, and that is that they are jealous. Their greatest fear is of ever being held responsible for their words or actions.

The above hissed in response by: Fritz [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 7, 2007 8:22 AM

The following hissed in response by: Insufficiently Sensitive

This is nothing to be proud of, but the State of Washington is even more politically correct than California. We HAD a felony murder law. The Washington Supreme Court eviscerated it in 2002.

"An assault that leads to an unintended death isn't murder, the Washington State Supreme Court decided in vacating 13 convictions for murder."

"The high court said 13 persons had been convicted of a "non-existent crime" of "felony murder."

"The release of the 13 persons convicted of murder resulted from the high court's decision in 2002 when it ruled that an assault couldn't be a predicate offense for the felony crime of murder."

So take that. We can out-People's Republic youse guys any day.

The above hissed in response by: Insufficiently Sensitive [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 7, 2007 10:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: Martin Hague

The AP don't even try to sound objective any longer. They've been totally rumbled, time and again, and yet they shamelessly peddle their pacific tripe, safe in the knowledge that their real customers (MSM) like what they read, and will continue to buy.

If Green Helmet didn't shame them, tell me what could?

The above hissed in response by: Martin Hague [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 7, 2007 12:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: mifouf

This same concept applies in spades to civilian Arab deaths which occur when the IDF is battling the terrorists attacking Israel. For the Israeli press, however, the concept is a complete mystery. They seem incapable of stating that: "There were X palestinian deaths caused by palestinian actions when palestinians launched rockets toward Ashkelon", for example. The Israelis need to say this each and every time there is a palestinian death during Israeli self-defense measures. It would take many, many, many repeats before it would begin to sink into the mush between the ears of most Western readers, but the power of repitition is great, and eventually even the dullest would begin to get the point.

The above hissed in response by: mifouf [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 7, 2007 12:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

This reminds me of my favorite Jack Handy quote:

"Instead of having 'answers' on a math test, they should just call them 'impressions,' and if you got a different 'impression,' so what, can't we all be brothers?"

AP has the impression that NATO kills more civilians than the Taliban, but hey, can't we all be brothers?

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 9, 2007 9:52 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved