O’Reilly: Karzai’s Concern For Civilian Causalities Is ‘Insulting’
O’Reilly: Karzai’s Concern For Civilian Causalities Is ‘Insulting’
Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly blasted Afghan President Hamid Karzai for appealing to U.S. forces to do more to limit civilian casualties in Afghanistan. O’Reilly chastised Karzai, calling his appeal “insulting” and suggesting that Afghans are ungrateful for the support they receive from U.S. and NATO forces:
OREILLY: U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan are risking their lives to protect the Afghan people from the Taliban and al Qaeda. But President Karzai does not seem to get that. Once again, he has condemned American forces after a raid killed some civilians.
In that raid, a top Taliban commander and some of his cronies were also killed, but apparently, Karzai doesn’t understand that in war, collateral damage is constantly present. U.S. military is investigating the situation, but Check believes Karzai is making a political grandstand play, and it is insulting. Without us, his head is on a stick.
Watch it:
O’Reilly was referring to a recent air strike that the U.S. military claims killed 15 Taliban fighters, but that Karzai claims killed 16 civilians. While the investigation is ongoing, O’Reilly’s blanket condemnation of Karzai’s concern for civilian deaths misses the broader point: American success in Afghanistan depends on reducing civilian casualties there.
U.S. and NATO forces are increasingly reliant on air strikes to prosecute its counterinsurgency objectives in Afghanistan. As Human Rights Watch explained, “There has been a massive and unprecedented surge in the use of air power in Afghanistan in 2008,” resulting in higher civilian death rates. According to the latest U.N. figures, foreign forces in Afghanistan were responsible for the deaths of 577 civilians in 2008 “including 395 deaths caused by airstrikes” — a 40 percent increase over the previous year.
This increase in civilian casualties has “dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces.” As Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it to the congressional testimony today, “civilian casualties are doing [U.S. interests] enormous harm in Afghanistan“:
I will tell you that I believe the civilian casualties are doing us enormous harm in Afghanistan. And we have got to do better in terms of avoiding casualties. I say that knowing full well the Taliban mingle among the people, use them as barriers, but when we go ahead and attack, we play right into their hands. … My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of the problem rather than part of their solution and then we are lost.
Ignoring the increasing levels of “collateral damage” — as O’Reilly appears to recommend — is not only unethical, it would further empower the very forces that U.S. and NATO forces are attempting to defeat.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
So much for that culture of life thingy.
¶ AIO
January 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pmSomeone please either get that hate-monger O’Reilly off the air or ship him over there to experience the real thing. Any decent person will be disgusted by his remarks– imagine attacking someone for being upset & saddened by civilian casualties.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:04 pmOh, I think Karzai DOES understand that in war, collateral damage is constantly present — he actually deals with it every day. But he also understands something O’Reilly doesn’t — that you can’t have constant collateral damage and no real damage to the intended objective and still harbor any hope of “winning the hearts and minds” of the local population.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:04 pmBy O’Reilly’s standard, would he argue that the civilians dead on 9/11 were also collateral damage for US policy, and their survivors are ungrateful for the mighty American military standing on the neck of the oppressed.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:06 pmEh… they weren’t Christians, fetuses, or FOX viewers, so why would he care?
January 27th, 2009 at 2:07 pmInsulting?? To insist that the United States doesn’t kill civilians???
What the hell have we become??
January 27th, 2009 at 2:07 pmYeah, how dare Karzai care for the life and well-being of his own citizens.
What an ingrate!
/sarc off
January 27th, 2009 at 2:10 pmThank you, Bill O’Reilly, for reminding us over and over again that the Right are degenerates.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:11 pmraynman Says:
Insulting?? To insist that the United States doesn’t kill civilians???
What the hell have we become??
It’s not what we’ve become, it’s what the right wing in this country has become. For all their talk about being “pro-life”, they really have absolutely no regard for human life. It’s bad enough that people have to die to advance the right wing’s agenda, but that it’s to advance a failed agenda just makes this murder.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pmDo these blowhards all secretly gather at night before some giant idol of their Blood God and chant about bringing more death to the world… it’s starting to sound more and more like that’s the only explanation for their behavior.
O’Really might have a point if Karzai were actually your average puppet dictator who intends to tyranically rule once the U.S. forces eliminate his opposition. However, if he actually seeks to represent the interests of his people, then he’s got to say a thing or two about the not getting blowed up, which is generally in peoples’ interests.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pmIn other words, O’Reilly is telling Karzai to “shut up” about civilian deaths. And remember, BillO was in “combat”, so he knows more about war than Karzai.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:13 pmO’Reilly again bloviates as if he has some great military experience. O’Reilly would probably cry like a Bohner-baby if he got a collateral wood splinter in his finger.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:15 pmWell ain’t that another bold fresh piece of humanity from human urinal Bill O’Reilly?
January 27th, 2009 at 2:17 pmOl’ falafel pervy O’Lielly thinks they are just savages and their lives are meaningless, and what’s wrong with killing a few of them if we HAD a chance of killing one bad guy…if they wouldn’t invite the bad guy to their wedding then they had it coming to them.
Repukian mentality is mental.
Go blow a goat Bill pervy boy.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pmIf this keeps up the Catholic Church is going to have to seriously review their stand on exorcism.
Billo, plz don’t eat the pea soup.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
alphainfinityomega Says:
So much for that culture of life thingy.
¶ AIO
Like an *ssh*le like you cares about life!
Hey, Dude, you better get your mom wipe some of that foam from your mouth; that mixed with the Cheetos crust around your mouth ‘ain’t too attractive.
LMAOROTF
¶ AIO
January 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pmI wish Bill-o would do a USO trip to Afghanistan and get his @ss blowed up as part of that collateral thingy!
January 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pmO’Reilly is off the mark. But, the continued (and anticipated increase) of co-lateral innocent civilian deaths is now an Obama and Democrat and Progressive issue. Obama pledges to refocus on Afganistan after the Iraq distraction. The latest incident happened on Obama’s watch. If we double the troop strenghth and increase the efforts to get terrorists in an Afghanistan ’surge’, undoubtedly more innocent civilians will die. Is riding the world of those suspected terrorists worth the cost?
We can focus on how callous Bill O’Reilly is, but is that avoiding the broader, more substanitive issue?
January 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pmThe only time O’Reilly can get it up is by thinking about bloody and mutilated women and children — and rubbing interns with falafel.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:26 pmU.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan are risking their lives to protect the Afghan people from the Taliban and al Qaeda
January 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
The USA is in Afegahnistan for the same reasons it illegaly invaded and occupied Iraq. OIL PIPELINE. It is constructing military bases along the root of this pipeline. Calling legitimate fighters of this occupation as terrorists is a JOKE! Saying it is fighting ‘terrorism’ is false PROPAGANDA. ObaOba Obama is continuing Bush/Neocon agenda of Oil control. No CHANGE there!
January 27th, 2009 at 2:28 pmThey’re OK with that too as long as the mother dies with those cells.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pmO’Reilly is only playing to his base, which seems to equate with the viewers who believe his lies and distortions.
This passes for reporting? It’s even sloppy and distorted punditry…
January 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pmInsulting to BO because he believes the life of one American soldier is worth more than the life of one Afghan civilian. And so do millions of Americans. Plus we pour in all those millions of dollars. We are a proud Christian nation.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:34 pmMatt. The leader of Afghanistan decries the loss of innocent life and TP goes to Bill O’Reilly to see what he thinks. Afghanistan is not the fault of Obama or Progressives, but they are now in charge of the situation. They are responsible for the policies going forward. If we are going to comment about the situation in Afghanistan, I believe it is significantly less important what O’Reilly thinks and of much more consequence what Obama and the new administration plan to do about it.
I guess I’m calling for a paradigm shift here. The good news is: conservatives no longer run the country. The bad news: progressives now become responsible for the policies going forward. If we don’t like civilian deaths in Afghanistan – we should look to the new administration for resolution or those concerns. Blaming now impotent conservatives for the world’s ills, going forward, is becoming rapidly less convincing and even less productive.
If innocent civilians are dying in Afghanistan, why waste debate on what Bill O’Reilly thinks. Why not debate the plans of the people that have real power to address the situation?
January 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pmObama’s only been president for a week! He can’t undo all eight years of the damage that Bush and his ilk have done overnight. I wouldn’t be so quick to blame this latest incident on Obama. It’s not like the bombings started the day he took office.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pmThis ongoing disregard for human life, albeit faceless brown people that O’Reilly and his ilk don’t consider to be important, leaves me speechless.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pmPEACE
GATES: “I say that knowing full well the Taliban mingle among the people, use them as barriers, but when we go ahead and attack, we play right into their hands.”
Da ya think Falafel Man even understands what Secretary Gates is saying??
My guess he just doesn’t care and his feeling towards the Afghans: ‘Just be happy we’re there and if some of you die, well so what, we were attacked on 9/11 and all bets are off, the United States has to protect itself’
IDIOT!!
January 27th, 2009 at 2:40 pmEach time Bill O’Reilly inhales and exhales is insulting. So I guess the two cancel each other out.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:41 pmWell, they weren’t really “living,” at least not by the Loofah’s standards, so f@ck ‘em…
January 27th, 2009 at 2:41 pmWe can focus on how callous Bill O’Reilly is, but is that avoiding the broader, more substanitive issue?
The substantive issue is we’re supposed to be ABOVE that sort of thing here in the United States. We don’t kill innocent people. The whole term collateral damage is immensely damaging in and of itself because of the dehumanization is renders to those it applies to. If this happened in an American City, methinks our Billy would be just as outraged as Karzai. There are no good wars, only innocent dead.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:42 pmBREAKING…….(not really) It has been confirmed that Bill O’Reilly is not part of the human species as originally thought. It is now being reported that he is in fact a member of the “lower than pond scum” species.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:43 pmbackup Says:
The latest incident happened on Obama’s watch. If we double the troop strenghth and increase the efforts to get terrorists in an Afghanistan ’surge’, undoubtedly more innocent civilians will die. Is riding the world of those suspected terrorists worth the cost?
January 27th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
_____________
Not necessarily. There are two ways to approach the Afghanistan/Pakistan war.
One is as an endless whack-a-mole police action that focuses on hitting “targets of opportunity” from 30,000 feet.
The other is as an effort to stabilize and legitimize the Afghan and Pakistani civilian governments with their people and establish a broad-based rule of law that prevents terrorist groups from forming in the first place.
The former is what we’ve been doing since 2001. The latter is where Obama needs to go if he wants to actually end the war. If he uses more troops to just drop more bombs and kick in more doors, there will be more civilian casualties and an increase in the power of al-Qa’ida and the Taliban. But if he uses the military “surge” (along with a diplomatic and development “surge”) to strengthen local governorships and provincial leaders and help develop Afghan agriculture and infrastructure and economic governance, there won’t be a need to drop bombs on wedding parties, because the Taliban won’t be invited.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pmOh, really, O’Reilly?
Opinions are like buttholes, Billdo, apparently you were born with two.
The fact you choose to speak out of one of those orifices does not, in fact, lend any credibility to words spoken.
Hate Media: Not just for Fox Noise anymore…
January 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pmI always get nervous when I hear paradigm shift.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:45 pmI think that is the whole point. liely is still talking like bush is in office. It won’t be done in the same way.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pmLet’s use his own “logic”
Karzai is insulting by worrying about civilian deaths – kind opf like the US worrying about citizen deaths on 9/11.
You can’t look at collateral damage – kind of like the 9/11 hijackers didn’t worry about collateral deaths (and one of the jets flew into the Pentagon unlike the US missing the military targets).
If you are a nation that harbors terrorists, you are a terrorist and everyone is a combatant – like the refugees in gaza are combatants and like the folks in the WTC were combatants.
Frankly, I don’t know how someone with this outlook can exist!
January 27th, 2009 at 2:49 pmbackup Says:
I guess I’m calling for a paradigm shift here. The good news is: conservatives no longer run the country. The bad news: progressives now become responsible for the policies going forward. If we don’t like civilian deaths in Afghanistan – we should look to the new administration for resolution or those concerns. Blaming now impotent conservatives for the world’s ills, going forward, is becoming rapidly less convincing and even less productive.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
_____________
Agreed, though I would counter that those “impotent conservatives” can still use everything from the filibuster to the Murdoch Pulpit to prevent Congress from appropriating the funding that will be necessary to make actual paradigm shift a reality. They’re not quite as out of power as you think, as the ARARA debate has shown.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:50 pmIf Obama wants to change things there, we need to get out. Dropping a bomb at 30,000 feet is only engendering harder feelings when civilians die. We should do the right thing and LEAVE THEM ALONE. Keep an eye on them, yes – we don’t want anymore Mullah Omars, but the Afghans and various ethnic groups have been dicking each other around for centuries and nobody has been able to stop it. The Russians couldn’t do it, the British couldn’t do it, and we certainly haven’t been able to do it. Do you not understand, Bill O’Dumhead, that these are living, breathing people over there?
January 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pmBildo was just jealous of all the attention, albeit negative, that Limbaugh’s been getting so he had to out dumb him. Much the same way glezzery showed up and tried to sound stupider than backup.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:52 pminsulting like the sudden concern of our Trolls for the Pakistanis now that Obama is president when they ignored the war in Iraq and the casualties it caused…
Concern for human casualties is nothing partisan…
January 27th, 2009 at 2:55 pmGeeDubs Says:
We should do the right thing and LEAVE THEM ALONE.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
___________
Isn’t that exactly what we did after the Afghan Arabs and the Mujaheddin kicked out the Soviets, with the help of our armaments and funding?
The “leave them alone” strategy didn’t work out all that well for us. It never does.
What we need is a third way – a relationship with Afghanistan that is neither detatchment nor colonial occupation.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:56 pmRepublicans are liars, traitors, Nazis and criminals. The GOP corporate shills in the mudstream media are also liars, traitors, Nazis and criminals.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:56 pmThat really isn’t fair. If these clowns are going to go feeding frenzy and biting each other we really should protest.
From a distance.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:56 pmThe U.S. needs to stop playing God and deciding who’s life is worth living. When there were civilian casualties in Gaza the U.S. had something to say, but why when we are the ones killing civians does it get to be called “collateral damage”
January 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pmandread8769 Says:
When there were civilian casualties in Gaza the U.S. had something to say…
January 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
__________
Yeah. As I recall from Perino’s press conferences, what we had to say was “bummer.”
January 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pmWhat does Rush Lintballs have to say on this matter.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:02 pmI agree with this. Also factor in the distint possibility of real unilateral involvement now that bush is gone…..That alone will change the way the problem is viewed.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:03 pmO’Reilly is not the problem, only the craven volunteer to catapult the propaganda.
The sponsors pay to perpetuate the O’Reilly mentality. They make money from this shtick.
The corporate media, FOX and Sinclair corporations make money from this shtick.
Pull the plug on the money, and you end O’Reilly’s career. Making it a point that subsidizing stupidity is a losing proposition will make an impression on advertisers, particularly in the current economic downturn.
Tell FOX advertisers why you aren’t buying their products.
Carping about FOX’s latest designated racist @sshole mouthpiece will not matter as they will simply fill the position with another, and judging from the republican cheerleaders in the last election, there is a more than adequate supply from which to draw.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:07 pmtoasterhead.
your comments are right on. I support Obama’s refocus on Afghanistan. I don’t think leaving the situation alone addresses the situation. And and I trust (and hope) that he can make prudent decisions to limit the civilian deaths while we protect our (and the world’s) security interests.
And you are right that conservatives may still have some influence, but, for the most part, it is now the policies of Obama, Pelosi, Reed and other progressives, that will shape the future. Not Bill O’Reilly.
It seems like only a distraction from dealing with a more difficult, real issue.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:13 pmBasically O’Rly’s just setting up the usual conservative problem-solving approach: there are good guys and there are bad guys and then they fight to the death, boom boom psshew krassshhh! Everybody else must be on either one side or the other, because there is no third side. There are two sides: our side and the other side. Anybody not on our side is on the other side. This is of course about the level of international affairs complexity involved in a 1st-grader’s understanding of a snowball fight.
As O’Rly formulates it, the U.S. is on one side (natch), and the Afghani citizenry are on the other. Karzai must therefore choose whether to side against his own people or against us. It’s really very simple. Veeerrrryyy simple…
January 27th, 2009 at 3:13 pmHoodathunk Says:
That really isn’t fair. If these clowns are going to go feeding frenzy and biting each other we really should protest.
From a distance.
Say, 30,000 feet?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:13 pmWow.
Torture, killing civilians, white phosphorus, murdering children — all of that’s just peachy with the Reichwing.
Sick.
STFU, Billo, you sick, stupid, evil bastard.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:15 pmglezzery Says:
I doubt many innocent civilians are just being blown up indiscriminately.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Reality disagrees with you.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:18 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
Say, 30,000 feet?
And no parachute? I can dig it.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:19 pmglezzery Says:
I think we all know some grandstanding by Karzai is mandatory.
Its all part of the game. Civilians, terrorists posing as civilians, Karzai, warlords, whatever.
Lets not fly off the handle.
I doubt many innocent civilians are just being blown up indiscriminately.
Of course Karzai is going to complain. What is he supposed to do- YAYYYY AMERICA! **** YEAH!
The post quoted above is actually somewhat reasonable and I find little to criticize about it. A bit, but the fact that I don’t find very much to criticize is far more remarkable than whatever else I was going to say.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pmLeftside. you understand that the attack that Karzai is condemning, happened under Obama as the commander in chief. He did not order those attacks stopped. And he is committing to increase the number of troops and scale of operations in Afghanistan. Probably resulting in an increase in the number of the deaths you criticize.
Why do you think that killing civilians and children is only the domain of the Right wing?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pmWhy do you think that killing civilians and children is only the domain of the Right wing?
It’s not. It’s just that the right wing enjoys it more.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:30 pmtime to revoke bill-do’s membership to the john wayne movie of the month club. this assclown knows nothing of serving in the military and nothing of war, other than wanking off to “the ballard of the green berets”
January 27th, 2009 at 3:31 pmglezzery Says: “Do they they think there is no reason for us to be there, like Al Qida never existed.”
like a good little neoclown lapdog look how it conflates afghanistan with al qaeda (which apparently it has trouble spelling).
Nice try chief, but the TALIBAN is in afghanistan…you know, the modern name for the mujahideen who ronnie raygun funded in the 80’s.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pmMaybe I’m going to go out on a wing here but after having served in the military I know it takes a little time for things to filter out to the troops in the field.
Talk to me again real soon if these sorts of attacks continue.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pmBackup – you can kiss my backside.
This is BUSH’S doing, bub, YOUR HERO. You and the neocon criminals own this, so suck it up.
Eat shite and die.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:39 pmOreilly is such a boob so what do his ratings say about the IQ of the American people or more specifically the right wing American people
January 27th, 2009 at 3:43 pmOutraged? Outraged?
Because civilians casualties are an unfortunate byproduct of war, and that’s okay with Falafel boy?
But not when they are white.
Example:
Nick Berg, the unfortunate soul who was beheaded during the war on terror, was a civilian fatality. I don’t recall Orally being outraged at the demands of the US to halt such inhumane actions.
So,”brown” infants and children being burned alive is okay, but videotaped executions of “whites” are not?
This is the major difference between the right, and progressives (in my most humble opinion). “We” believe that all life is sacred, and that all civilians should go unharmed during the time or war. That includes us. That includes our allies. That includes our enemies.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pm“They” justify enemy civilian deaths as warranted (anyway that they can), to further their fear mongering agenda.
It’s quite ironic, and not funny at all, that the big anti-abortion maniacs over here don’t a give a flippin’ damn about the brown life’s over there.
Lets take a look at Gunga Din O’Reilly’s Selective Service Classification Record:
January 27th, 2009 at 3:46 pmDOB 9-10-1949
Selective Service No. 30-4-49-2597
From 11-27-1967 Gunga-Din Bill was a student in college till May of 1971 when he graduated.
It gets kind of confusing now with the Selective Service and Bill-o! On 5-24-1971 Bill-o has taken a physical ordered by the Draft Board and is rejected on the same date of May 24,1971.
“BUT” in his bio at Wiki it states the following: “He played semi-professional baseball during this time,as a pitcher for the New York Monarchs!” The time being talked about is at the end of his senior year in May and throughout the summer. He was a semi-professional pitcher,but failed his physical. Later on during the baseball season Bill-O receives a 1-Y classification on Aug 16,1971!
Bill-o’s healthy enough to be a semi-professional pitcher, but not physically able to serve his Country! Only Bill-o and his God know what happened during his draft physical, as all medical records pertaining to the Vietnam War drafts, were destroyed after the war by a Presidential Order.
I wonder If Bill-o might be a “Little light in the loafers?”
O’Reilly obviously doesn’t think Afghan lives are worth much, so let’s put the scenario a little closer to home — something he can identify with a little better.
Picture a bank. Customers in line, waiting to make deposits and conduct other business. Suddenly, a band of bank robbers break in — armed to the teeth. They hold everybody else in their hostage while they attempt to gain access to the main vault to rob it.
Next, the police show up — a lot of them. They come in with guns blazing, and they don’t stop until everybody in the place is dead — robbers, customers, bank employees, everyone.
One could make an argument that the police kept the bank from being robbed, and did so very quickly and efficiently. After all, the innocent bystander fatalities were just collateral damage. Which should be expected in the War on Crime — right?
If this actually happened anywhere, you can bet there’d be some blowback. The residents of the city wouldn’t be pleased, and the mayor would have some harsh words to say to the police. And the mayor would no doubt become somewhat apoplectic if the police chief dared to suggest that the mayor wasn’t showing the proper gratitude for the work the police did for the city.
Absurd? Of course — this is an extreme situation. But how is it really different from the one in Afghanistan?
January 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pmglezzery, I can’t think of anyone who fits the definition of
January 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pmugly American better than you and billo.
What have they to be grateful for? We are killing numerous civilians there like we did in Iraq. I’m sorry, I wouldn’t be grateful to a country that did that to me. Besides, we don’t seem to be helping them much.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:52 pmO’Reilly would be more than happy to see 3/4 of Afghanistan’s population killed as collateral damage, and Karzai better shut up because we are helping their country. The hypocrisy and sheer madness of the neocons are akin to Hitler.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:58 pmLeftside.
Maybe you don’t understand what happened. The U.S. , under President Obama, conducted an airstrike that has resulted in innocent civilian casualties. Obama has not ordered those strikes stopped. To the contrary, he proposes to increase the efforts there.
If we were to try to make a comparison using your logic, we could say that the blood lusting cheerleader, is now you.
I don’t see things as you do. I trust Obama to do the right thing. But, I suggest the answers aren’t as black and white as you have attempted to make them out to be.
And in the future, when your disparaging the inhumanity of American action, don’t forget whose running the show.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:59 pmLeftside he’s right Obama was wrong to allow such an attack.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:04 pmbackup, O’Reilly doesn’t blame Bush or Obama he blames Karzai. You’re the only person here who brought up blaming Obama or Bush. Obama wants to send in more troops so we can accurately target the terrorists and reduce collateral damage, Get it? Why that bomb was dropped nobody knows, after 8 years and a million dead Iraqis your blaming Obama for this if ridiculous.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pmBUT, our concern is human life. The only thing you people are ever concerned about is your party.
98%!?!?!
January 27th, 2009 at 4:11 pmLet me get this Billo logic right…
Scores of nameless, faceless Afghan civilians getting killed to get at a few Taliban is collateral damage.
But if you have two Border Patrol agents kill an unarmed drug dealer…no matter how bad he is…and send both of them to prison, the neocon pundits get on their mics and go “rabble, rabble, rabble”.
Gee, the stank of racism is pretty fowl in the GOP kitchen when the skin color turns to shades of brown nowadays.
Blurred racism is the GOP’s version of objectivity.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:21 pmCan glezzery be ban for spamming or simply putting stupid comments over and over? and when ask to prove it never backs it up?
January 27th, 2009 at 4:24 pmglezzary.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:24 pmI really can’t speak for others but I don’t care if you have an opinion other than mine. I don’t even care if you have an opinion. See the thing is that you present in such a way as to come across as nothing more than a negative attention seeker
Hi Trajan!
January 27th, 2009 at 4:27 pmHow was your fantasy trip to Cabo?
Did you meet the fantasy Sammy Hagar?
Forget Cabo things with some skank in Kentucky are where it is at…
January 27th, 2009 at 4:29 pmglezzery Says:
OMG!!! We are carpet bombing innocent children!
So would you be willing to put any five cute, cuddly, innocent American children you know in Afghanistan? Say for 6 hours, 12 hours…higher, lower?
Maybe you’d get the point that we went mad after close to 4,000 people met their maker on one day of horror here. Now imagine a nation where that one day is basically spread over a lifetime.
At this point, thinking we’re helping matters by killing more civilians and having the Billo’s try to justify it makes it look like hawkish, looking through the looking glass elitism.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:30 pmI don’t think it is nonsense. Each and everytime you appear it is to hurl around stuff designed to be irritating. Why not come in with polite engagement of differences. You have an agenda which is clear
January 27th, 2009 at 4:31 pmShayne. If you think I’m blaming Obama for Afghanistan, you’re not reading my posts. I’m trying to understand how many here criticize conservatives for the innocent civilian deaths in Afghanistan (with great sanctimony) while they remain silent (or possibly ignorant) about the progressive leadership carrying out the bombing that is at the heart of this thread.
I support Obama. I hope he can make better decisions than we’ve had. But, how can you disparage conservatives for these civilian deaths, when the incident in question was carried out and fully supported by the new administration?
January 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pmIs anyone here calling the military a liar?!?!
Do you evidence to dispute what the military says happened?
Well, we know for a fact that they lied about PFC Jessica Lynch. Oh, and they changed their story several times about the death of Pat Tillman. So, yeah, I’ll call the military a liar.
Wayne A. Schneider
January 27th, 2009 at 4:33 pmFormer SSGT, USAF
Differing view points are bad, evidently.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:36 pm—
No they aren’t. The difference is that appears not to be the goal. You and I both know that now don’t we?
backup Says:
And he is committing to increase the number of troops and scale of operations in Afghanistan. Probably resulting in an increase in the number of the deaths you criticize.
Actually he wanted to put more infantry in Afghanistan so that they could rely on areal attacks less and therefore have less collateral damage. I recall that the wingnuts criticized him for this, accusing him of complaining about the collateral damage.
.
glezzery Says:
Human Rights Watch. A reliable source of information.
Considering their concern is human rights, I’d say they are reliable where human rights are concerned. Are human rights only a left wing concern?
.
glezzery Says:
Its a guerilla war. All the bad guys look like the innocent bystanders, they just don’t act like it.
I would bet there have been a few mistakes but 98% of the folks getting killed are Taliban.
You just pulled that number out of your orifice. It’s not a real number.
.
glezzery Says:
A million dead Iraqis!?!?!
Last independent estimate I heard was 600,000. So I guess that doesn’t count. Besides, 98% of them were Al-Qaeda, right?
.
glezzery Says:
That’s pretty much what O’Rly was saying on his show. Nobody has to be psychic to listen to what he was saying.
.
glezzery Says:
Its called an opinion, like most everything here.
Matters of fact, such as how many corpses there are in a stack, are not subject to opinion. There is a real world outside of the one in your head. That’s where real people are really dying.
.
glezzery Says:
There IS no indiscriminate dropping of bombs in Afghanistan Or even in Gaza.
It is a Leftist MYTH!
How come all of the civilians keep going ’splody then? Suicide bombers trying to frame us?
.
glezzery Says:
I guess Dr. Hussein Matt will now add that Truman murdered more yellow people than Mao.
Nonsense.
We don’t think of them as “yellow people,” and we would actually use reliable estimates for comparison. However, such a comparison is not a moral comparison in and of itself. It wouldn’t matter whether Truman or Mao killed more people. I’d explain that further but you are a moron.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:37 pmbackup Says:
But, how can you disparage conservatives for these civilian deaths, when the incident in question was carried out and fully supported by the new administration?
There’s a certain amount of momentum to these things. Once the military has units in certain areas working under certain rules of engagement, given certain mission parameters and building their operations around that, moving things in a different direction is going to take a little time. It’s not like every engagement was done on a whim of the President. However, the previous President did intentionally develop the military’s rules and goals into the current situation that allows such engagements to occur. He did that on purpose.
On the other hand, it’s not like Obama called them up and said “bomb some targets in Pakistan.” He may have been asked for permission and granted it, which disappoints me a little. But consider the alternative – if he immediately reversed standing missions, orders and goals without going through some kind of investigative procedure, he’d be called erratic, they’d say he’s “meddling from Washington,” and it’s possible that they might be right. It’s just Obama’s style to step back, have a working group go through all the data and make a comprehensive recommendation for a better set of policies, then put those policies in place. Consider his response to the Blago communications report, which developed from a single press pool question. It’s just how he rolls.
So the most we can be disappointed with him for is not being mavericky enough. I can live with that.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:50 pmHopefully, you’re right and it reduces the civilian casualties. But, the flip side to that is more troop deaths. You would probably concede that conservatives did take criticism for the troop deaths in Iraq. It would seem plausible that if more troops are introduced into Afghanistan, increasing troop deaths would probably result. I support Obama, but the question that isn’t being debated here (as it has been in the past) is whether increased civilian deaths and/or increased troop deaths are worth it. My answer is: I trust that if Obama feels that it’s important to pursue the effort, we should support him and trust he’ll make good decisions.
What do others here believe. Why the relative lack of interest in debating the topic?
January 27th, 2009 at 4:53 pmElBruce. Your response is reasonable. It is very early and Obama would get a pass from me, even if I opposed his actions. But, his intentions seem clear. He’s going to step it up in Afghanistan. We can hope he executes much better than Bush, but the idea remains – he wants more, not less, military involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
This site was full of anti-war debate over the past 8 years. I feel that because the commander in chief is now progressive, those same anti-war voices may be self censoring due to the partisan interests. Although I’m not in that camp, I think the decisions are better when we hear all the voices.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:05 pmbackup Says:
What do others here believe. Why the relative lack of interest in debating the topic?
Speaking entirely for myself, I have little or no interest in debating any topic with you. I’ve been down that road before and it’s completely unproductive.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pmbackup Says:
Hopefully, you’re right and it reduces the civilian casualties.
Here’s Obama’s quote from during the campaign. Accusing him of intending to increase civilian casualties in Afghanistan by increasing troop levels is pretty simplistic in light of what he’s saying there.
.
backup Says:
But, the flip side to that is more troop deaths. You would probably concede that conservatives did take criticism for the troop deaths in Iraq. It would seem plausible that if more troops are introduced into Afghanistan, increasing troop deaths would probably result. I support Obama, but the question that isn’t being debated here (as it has been in the past) is whether increased civilian deaths and/or increased troop deaths are worth it.
I think people naturally weigh troop casualties against the justification for the war in the first place. In the case of Iraq, 1 casualty would have been too much, since there was no reason to go there at all. Afghanistan was a different story – pretty much the whole world agreed that they totally asked for it.
It’s weird – early in the last century, you could have six, seven figures worth of soldiers die in a war and that was just how it goes. It’s been gradually decreasing to the point that if four figures of soldiers die, there’s a huge crisis about whether it’s worth it or not. I think that’s a good thing, since it indicates that society puts a much higher value on human life than it once did, and values war a great deal less. But on the other hand, if Afghanistan isn’t worth resolving after 9/11, then what is?
.
backup Says:
Why the relative lack of interest in debating the topic?
Typically, screaming at wingnut trolls is way more psychologically profitable.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:14 pm… because Mr. O’Reilly has so much experience with warfare.
Perhaps someone might point out to Mr. Bill where Mr. Karzai has lived for most of his life.
William Massengill O’Reilly.
January 27th, 2009 at 5:36 pmO’Reilly has about much credibility with the general public as President Bush/Cheney—which is to say none. His program is fodder for Fox News viewers, but irrelevant in the real world. He is a legend in his own mind.
January 27th, 2009 at 6:16 pmOh, indeed. It’s shameful that Karzai would care for the safety of his own people after a careless onslaught from American troops. I can assure you, I do respect our men in uniform, but they are terribly coordinated in these situations.
These right-wing commentators are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
January 27th, 2009 at 6:39 pmNATO has also been concerned about the civilian casualties.
I’d like to think that sooner or later O’Reilly is going to toss out the last straw and his audience will drop off enough for him to follow.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:37 pmUm, TP? Can you fix the headline on this thread? It’s “CASUALTIES”, NOT “CAUSALITIES”.
Oy!
January 27th, 2009 at 8:59 pmALEJCARO Says:
He is a legend in his own mind.
___________
Didn’t you really mean to say, “A legend in his own behind”?
January 27th, 2009 at 9:49 pmIs O’Reilly human?
January 27th, 2009 at 11:01 pmUnfortunate as it is, O’Reilly is a member of our species.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:20 pmJane E. Schneider Says:
Um, TP? Can you fix the headline on this thread? It’s “CASUALTIES”, NOT “CAUSALITIES”.
Oy!
January 27th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
I have written to TP and asked them to try to do a better job of proofreading their posts before publishing them. They need to have at least one other person, not involved in the writing of the post, to look over it for spelling and grammar errors.
And why is the Norah O’Donnell thread called “sod-odonnell” in its URL title?
January 27th, 2009 at 11:22 pmSeriously, could the writers on the old “Mary Tyler Moore” show have imagined some futuristic Ted Baxter-on-steroids, on something similar to what we know as cable, pumped up and pimped out, with a history of screaming, “F*** it! We’ll do it live!?”
http://jackrabbitcafe.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-fox.html
January 28th, 2009 at 1:40 amDoes the Geneva Convention bar us from dropping O’Reilly from a couple of miles above Afghanistan?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pm