. . . after all, you failed to read it.

“I might be wrong but it seems to me that the Afghans have been at it for so long and are so numb they don't get that upset at incidents like this.”



So numb, don’t get upset at “accidental killings”? I'm sure you have you got a family and friends, and neighbors, and countrymen. The US has been engaged in wars for a long time - are you so numb, been at it so long, having them killed wouldn't bother you? Obviously not.





Again, you compare the test environment as equivalent to the control environment, and this is simply not the case. While I have not made the study you appear to have, I’m pretty sure outlooks in a war-torn land that has known nothing but violence and suppression for several decades is actually different from ours.

“they may perceive us as just another faction that kills certain people and makes a few mistakes along the way. The fact that we hand out some goodys in the process doesn't hurt.”



They’re hicks, give them some beads and they’ll be happy? It's hard to read this as meaning anything else. I would bet that on reflection you don't mean this.





Lately, I’m becoming surprised you can read at all. Are you saying that “the fact that we hand out some goodys in the process” does hurt? If so, how?

And, on first reading, I’d call that “dehumanizing” and “underestimating”. I really would.

And that is simply an opinion regarding one "skimmed" post, I’m sure.

Dan