Speedracer, read the post again. I did not say anything about your accusing the Afghani civilians of "complicity". I said "we say the Taliban were their government so it's OK", as in we base our justification that Afghani civilian deaths are "acceptable" upon a presumed association of these poor people with the Taliban.
And to directly refute your point, this was posted by someone on December 13 in this forum: "I will agree, however, that the Afghanistani people did not provoke the attack, however, you have to remember that the large majority of the Afghan population is Pashtun, and the Pashtuns were the ones who put the Taliban into power. I am not saying that the Afghan people supported Al-Qaeda, but I do think that they supported and, after a view years of knowing what they meant, were either indifferent or starting to realise that such a cruel government was not working; the point is, the Taliban didn't just appear and magically put themselves into power, they represented what at the time was a majority and what the majority wanted."
So apparently at least one person (and there were more - I just don't have time to search for them) do base at least part of their justification for killing Afghani civilians upon their "association" with the Taliban.
If I told you that 1000 more American civilians would have to die in order to remove the Taliban, would that be "acceptable"? If not, then why the difference between Afghanis and Americans? The main difference (for the 99% of us here who can get beyond race and religion) is presumably many people's impression that the Afghani civilians are "associated" with the guilty parties.
And quite frankly, I think the term "inevitable side effect" is bogus beyond belief. A side effect is when someone else's family is blown up. A disease is when it's one's own family, right?
I have no need to and never have misrepresented your views.
And to directly refute your point, this was posted by someone on December 13 in this forum: "I will agree, however, that the Afghanistani people did not provoke the attack, however, you have to remember that the large majority of the Afghan population is Pashtun, and the Pashtuns were the ones who put the Taliban into power. I am not saying that the Afghan people supported Al-Qaeda, but I do think that they supported and, after a view years of knowing what they meant, were either indifferent or starting to realise that such a cruel government was not working; the point is, the Taliban didn't just appear and magically put themselves into power, they represented what at the time was a majority and what the majority wanted."
So apparently at least one person (and there were more - I just don't have time to search for them) do base at least part of their justification for killing Afghani civilians upon their "association" with the Taliban.
If I told you that 1000 more American civilians would have to die in order to remove the Taliban, would that be "acceptable"? If not, then why the difference between Afghanis and Americans? The main difference (for the 99% of us here who can get beyond race and religion) is presumably many people's impression that the Afghani civilians are "associated" with the guilty parties.
And quite frankly, I think the term "inevitable side effect" is bogus beyond belief. A side effect is when someone else's family is blown up. A disease is when it's one's own family, right?
I have no need to and never have misrepresented your views.