Today's News: The Figures Are In. The USA Wins.

[infrogmation]

Two items from today's news:

From CNN: "The death toll from the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center has been revised down to 3,050, the New York Office of Emergency Management said Saturday. "
Source(at bottom of page)

From CommonDreams: "More than 3,500 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by U.S. bombs, according to a study to be released December 10 by Marc W. Herold, Professor of Economics, International Relations, and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire. "
Source

So, apparently, we've killed more innocent civilians in a nation with less than 1/10th the population of the USA than the terrorists killed on 11 September.

Do we get to declare victory now?

Will I be forgiven if I decline to wave a flag and shout "USA! USA!" in celebration of this news?

Comments

Re: Take a number

[sunburn.livejournal.com]

If you're trying work out some math where the Middle-Eastern terrorists killed more innocent civilians in the USA than the USA government killed in the Middle East, I honestly don't think you'll have much luck.

I'm honestly not. Just trying to get people to remember that the WTC is merely the worst, not the only, attack on US soil by terrorists, either speaking of 9/11 or more broadly. I find it bewildering that I keep seeing the comparison you just made, of WTC deaths, not 9/11 deaths, to the alleged number of civilians killed in Afghanistan, and people KEEP FORGETTING the other people that snuffed it. It's really irritating, that 300 dead people get left out because it doesn't fit into a nice comparison of headlines. Call it a pet peeve.

I'm not saying you forgot, but I am saying you neglected to count them. There are many, as far as I can tell, who did forget, and I want to spit on them every time they do so in a self-serving manner.

As I've said before, don't mistake this for any allegation that the USA's motives are as evil as the terrorists. No sir. I just find reprehensible any use of tactics that accepts mass killing of innocent bystanders.

I can't tell you, Froggy, how relieved I am to read that. I mean that. I've heard and read a lot of chatter that equates the motives of the US and the terrorists, and it's sickening.

As for tactics, I considering a property of national defense that we the nation will assign greater value to the lives of our people and soldiers than those of other nations. National defense must, I think, have this irrational bias in order to get its job done. And I'm satisfied that the job will be done, and that we'll make up for the damage.

If you have better figures or what you concider a good source conflicting with the above figures, feel free to present them.

I find it dishonest to hold back any rational reservations one has about one's source. No, I don't have a better source, which is amazing, considering almost anything could be a better source. The eagerness to just come up with a number does not outweigh the need for some rigorous conservatism when it comes to accepting the word of others. IMO.

Re: Take a number

[infrogmation.livejournal.com]

(I presume here we're still talking about This CommonDreams.org article mentioned above (http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1210-01.htm).)

"I find it dishonest to hold back any rational reservations one has about one's source. "

Eh? I didn't.

"almost anything could be a better source."

Why do you think that?
If I thought that, I wouldn't have posted the link.