Operation Cluster****: US Strike Kills 90 Civilians In Afghanistan, 15 Wounded

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Palehorse may or may not make a valid point, as the Taliban uses reprehensible tactics, it should help Nato win the battle for hearts and minds in Afghanistan, but sadly, an infinite number of such stories does not excuse a single example of Nato using similar representable tactics.
That's funny, I don't recall NATO ever utilizing suicide bombers against civilian targets, or ever intentionally initiating contact against civilians... anywhere. In fact, the ROE is so restrictive that I've personally witnessed NATO forces getting wounded and killed after being told that they were not allowed to return fire on a target due to potential civilian casualties. Hell, I've personally taken fire from a "mosque" (read: building that looks like every other, but someone believes that it "might" be a mosque), and been denied permission to return fire.

Do have any idea how many levels must be consulted before fire can be returned in areas populated by civilians!? Do you have any idea the number of casualties our forces have sustained as a result of being overly cautious?! Did you know that JAG officers and intelligence officers are consulted in an hourly basis to provide judgment calls and advice pertaining to actions where "proportional response" comes into play?

Bah... this is what happens when uninitiated civilians attempt to interpret reports on wars being fought halfway around the world.

It seems like it would be smart for folks involved in this discussion to pay attention to posts like this. In a democratic society we shouldn't exclude people from a discussion because they aren't members of the right group...but the national defense and intelligence business, just like anything else, is a field where the best commentary can often be provided by the people who have experience and knowledge. There can be, and should be, constant evaluation to make sure the job is being done right, but it seems kind of silly for people to draw conclusions about what's going on when they don't really even understand the topic being discussed.

There are valid complaints about some approaches NATO and US forces use, and ways in which I think we could be fighting this war better. But equating our tactics with the tactics of the Taliban moves this from reasonable discussion to mud slinging.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GrGr
Human shields or not, it is still murder.

The Taliban are basically barely armed peasants. All they have is very light arms and determination. They are up against the most sophisticated and powerful military on the planet with everything from light arms to nuclear cruise missiles, lasers, sattelites etc. To complain about the 'reprehensible' tactics of the Taliban completely misses the point.

Murdering children to achieve a local tactical victory is as reprehensible to me as any terrorist attack.

Do you really think "murdering children" was the objective here? For that matter, do you think it's possible to fight even "barely armed peasants" in a populated area without having any civilian casualties? I'm definitely not someone who thinks the military or the government is always right, but it seems to me like people who have no expertise or knowledge about the topic are very eager to draw all sorts of conclusions.

It is irrelevant what the effing 'objective' is. Both the terrorists and the military have similar 'objectives'. And both 'objectives' have the same results. Dead children. As a matter of fact it is the military with it's supposedly superior 'objective' that is better at killing children (as in having a higher child killing ratio) than the dread 'terrorists'.





 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GrGr
Human shields or not, it is still murder.

The Taliban are basically barely armed peasants. All they have is very light arms and determination. They are up against the most sophisticated and powerful military on the planet with everything from light arms to nuclear cruise missiles, lasers, sattelites etc. To complain about the 'reprehensible' tactics of the Taliban completely misses the point.

Murdering children to achieve a local tactical victory is as reprehensible to me as any terrorist attack.

Do you really think "murdering children" was the objective here? For that matter, do you think it's possible to fight even "barely armed peasants" in a populated area without having any civilian casualties? I'm definitely not someone who thinks the military or the government is always right, but it seems to me like people who have no expertise or knowledge about the topic are very eager to draw all sorts of conclusions.

It is irrelevant what the effing 'objective' is. Both the terrorists and the military have similar 'objectives'. And both 'objectives' have the same results. Dead children. As a matter of fact it is the military with it's supposedly superior 'objective' that is better at killing children (as in having a higher child killing ratio) than the dread 'terrorists'.

It's NOT irrelevant what the goal is. Killing civilians is never a good thing, but objectively I'd say that doing it accidentally is better than doing it intentionally.

And I'd love to see some numbers backing up that "ratio" statement you just pulled out of your ass. Considering that the military is going after enemy "soldiers", while the terrorists are intentionally targeting civilians, I'd be incredibly surprised to see any data that suggests that the military is "better" at killing civilians than the terrorists.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: woodie1
Originally posted by: GrGr

The Taliban are basically barely armed peasants. All they have is very light arms and determination.


This from one who has been there I reckon.

Yes, because their Air Force and Armoured Divisions strike fear in the hearts of all... :roll:

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GrGr
Human shields or not, it is still murder.

The Taliban are basically barely armed peasants. All they have is very light arms and determination. They are up against the most sophisticated and powerful military on the planet with everything from light arms to nuclear cruise missiles, lasers, sattelites etc. To complain about the 'reprehensible' tactics of the Taliban completely misses the point.

Murdering children to achieve a local tactical victory is as reprehensible to me as any terrorist attack.

Do you really think "murdering children" was the objective here? For that matter, do you think it's possible to fight even "barely armed peasants" in a populated area without having any civilian casualties? I'm definitely not someone who thinks the military or the government is always right, but it seems to me like people who have no expertise or knowledge about the topic are very eager to draw all sorts of conclusions.

It is irrelevant what the effing 'objective' is. Both the terrorists and the military have similar 'objectives'. And both 'objectives' have the same results. Dead children. As a matter of fact it is the military with it's supposedly superior 'objective' that is better at killing children (as in having a higher child killing ratio) than the dread 'terrorists'.

It's NOT irrelevant what the goal is. Killing civilians is never a good thing, but objectively I'd say that doing it accidentally is better than doing it intentionally.

And I'd love to see some numbers backing up that "ratio" statement you just pulled out of your ass. Considering that the military is going after enemy "soldiers", while the terrorists are intentionally targeting civilians, I'd be incredibly surprised to see any data that suggests that the military is "better" at killing civilians than the terrorists.

'Accidental' is subordinated to 'meeting the objective'. It doesn't matter which way is 'better' when the end result is the same.

How many wedding parties, shepards etc have the Taliban killed? The Afghan population is turning against the occupation for the simple reason they see NATO forces as more murderous than the Taliban, which is something isn't it.



 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GrGr
Human shields or not, it is still murder.

The Taliban are basically barely armed peasants. All they have is very light arms and determination. They are up against the most sophisticated and powerful military on the planet with everything from light arms to nuclear cruise missiles, lasers, sattelites etc. To complain about the 'reprehensible' tactics of the Taliban completely misses the point.

Murdering children to achieve a local tactical victory is as reprehensible to me as any terrorist attack.

Do you really think "murdering children" was the objective here? For that matter, do you think it's possible to fight even "barely armed peasants" in a populated area without having any civilian casualties? I'm definitely not someone who thinks the military or the government is always right, but it seems to me like people who have no expertise or knowledge about the topic are very eager to draw all sorts of conclusions.

It is irrelevant what the effing 'objective' is. Both the terrorists and the military have similar 'objectives'. And both 'objectives' have the same results. Dead children. As a matter of fact it is the military with it's supposedly superior 'objective' that is better at killing children (as in having a higher child killing ratio) than the dread 'terrorists'.

It's NOT irrelevant what the goal is. Killing civilians is never a good thing, but objectively I'd say that doing it accidentally is better than doing it intentionally.

And I'd love to see some numbers backing up that "ratio" statement you just pulled out of your ass. Considering that the military is going after enemy "soldiers", while the terrorists are intentionally targeting civilians, I'd be incredibly surprised to see any data that suggests that the military is "better" at killing civilians than the terrorists.

'Accidental' is subordinated to 'meeting the objective'. It doesn't matter which way is 'better' when the end result is the same.

That's one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread. Our entire concept of morality and ethics is built around motivation, and I'd wager that you'd agree too if you didn't have an axe to grind.
How many wedding parties, shepards etc have the Taliban killed? The Afghan population is turning against the occupation for the simple reason they see NATO forces as more murderous than the Taliban, which is something isn't it.

You made the accusation, you should provide numbers to back it up. But my recollection seems to be that the Taliban has killed a LOT of civilians. The reason the Afghan population is upset is not what you suggest, you are just pulling stuff completely out of thin air here. If you have ANYTHING to back up your accusations, I'd love to see it...but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: jman19
It's a troll because the thread has nothing to do with any candidates. If you can't argue the merits of this strike without bringing partisan politics in to the equation, then you've failed IMO.
This thread has nothing to do with anything other than the same old boring tools making their "Amerika Sux" commentary based on highly suspect statements that they are more than happy to run with. When we have some verified facts and figures that aren't suspect, as the OPs are, then we can discuss the "merits" or lack thereof. Until then we got nuthin but troll, troll, troll from those tools because they wouldn't ever allow such shoddy reporting to stand if it was a story that went against their ideology. Until YOU recognize that fact you're nothing but a troll too, or at the very least encouraging the trolls.
 

BackFlow

Banned
Aug 9, 2008
69
0
0
Commanders fired over Afghan deaths

Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, has sacked an army general and a major after more than 100 civilians were reported to have been killed in an attack by US-led coalition forces.

US regrets Afghan deaths

"We regret the loss of life among the innocent Afghanis who we are committed to protect," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said as US President George W. Bush spent time on his Texas ranch.

Karzai fired two top Afghan army commanders after coalition air strikes he said killed more than 89 civilians in one of the deadliest such incidents since 2001.

A presidential decree "orders the immediate removal" of the top army general for western Afghanistan and a commando commander after Friday's joint Afghan and US-led coalition operation in Herat province, a statement said.

General Jalandar Shah Behnam, head of the corps for western Afghanistan, and commando Major Abdul Jabar, were fired for "negligence and concealing facts," it said.

The number of casualties is unclear however it seems to be bad enought that a general & a major lost their job over it.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: GrGr
It is irrelevant what the effing 'objective' is. Both the terrorists and the military have similar 'objectives'. And both 'objectives' have the same results. Dead children. As a matter of fact it is the military with it's supposedly superior 'objective' that is better at killing children (as in having a higher child killing ratio) than the dread 'terrorists'.

"a matter of fact"?!?

That's horse shit.

Originally posted by: BackFlow
Commanders fired over Afghan deaths

Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president, has sacked an army general and a major after more than 100 civilians were reported to have been killed in an attack by US-led coalition forces.

US regrets Afghan deaths

"We regret the loss of life among the innocent Afghanis who we are committed to protect," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said as US President George W. Bush spent time on his Texas ranch.

Karzai fired two top Afghan army commanders after coalition air strikes he said killed more than 89 civilians in one of the deadliest such incidents since 2001.

A presidential decree "orders the immediate removal" of the top army general for western Afghanistan and a commando commander after Friday's joint Afghan and US-led coalition operation in Herat province, a statement said.

General Jalandar Shah Behnam, head of the corps for western Afghanistan, and commando Major Abdul Jabar, were fired for "negligence and concealing facts," it said.

The number of casualties is unclear however it seems to be bad enought that a general & a major lost their job over it.
It's called "CYA," and most Presidents are better at it than anyone else. Karzai needs to constantly appear to be listening to "the people," even when he knows the reports are complete bullshit.

Jesus... It's like teaching Insurgency 101 and Public Relations 101 to you people!
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse

Jesus... It's like teaching Insurgency 101 and Public Relations 101 to you people!

I think I saw those on distance learning now...
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
15
81
So is the OP suggesting that it would be a good idea for us to just leave Afghanistan and let the Taliban have it back? If not, then what, exactly?

In case it's not a complete troll (unlikely), let's say a whole mess of children really did die in a cluster bomb attack. What does OP think, that the US military did this deliberately? Mistakes do happen, they're terrible, but then, so is war.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: palehorse
rose.gif
for the five civilians killed during the attack. :(
Five? :laugh: You feed on US military propaganda like a pig at the trough.
So, dipshit, once you hit the part in the article you liked you stopped reading?

"Ministry of Defense said 25 militants and five civilians were killed. "
That would be the Afghan ministry of defense.

Try again?

Nice personal attack.

What a moran.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,960
140
106
..cry me a river. in other news over 3k americans are slaughtered behind the wheel on our nations roads and byways every month.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: IGBT
..cry me a river. in other news over 3k americans are slaughtered behind the wheel on our nations roads and byways every month.

You know, I'm not a big fan of people trying to demonize the military, but idiots like you are just as bad. Civilian deaths are never something to trivialize, and we should do our best to avoid them. Being a sociopath is not as helpful as you might think when it comes to winning a conflict like this.
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
Originally posted by: IGBT
..cry me a river. in other news over 3k americans are slaughtered behind the wheel on our nations roads and byways every month.

Judging by your signature you seem to have taken this up as a cause and I'm curious as to why.. accidents happen
 
Aug 24, 2008
25
0
0
i honestly wish i hadn't read this.

clinton and bush and all the other liberals are just sick and their intentions are no more virtuous than those of bin laden. if clinton and bush had the oppurtunity to have any more power then they'd be more harmful to society than joseph stalin was.

i only read the first page, but we do NOT have a legitimate beef with afghanistan.

it's al-qaida that has offered US a truce that's for OUR own good. we just want to attack, attack, attack at our own expense in more ways than one.

it's simple. we pull completely out of the middle east, cut off aid to israel (they don't really care about anyone but themselves, really they don't), and then we have absolute security, liberty, and economic prosperity.

what could be better? no worries, no deaths, and more money in citizens' pockets. and the founders would no longer be ashamed of us.
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
Originally posted by: libertarian420
i honestly wish i hadn't read this.

clinton and bush and all the other liberals are just sick and their intentions are no more virtuous than those of bin laden. if clinton and bush had the oppurtunity to have any more power then they'd be more harmful to society than joseph stalin was.

i only read the first page, but we do NOT have a legitimate beef with afghanistan.

it's al-qaida that has offered US a truce that's for OUR own good. we just want to attack, attack, attack at our own expense in more ways than one.

it's simple. we pull completely out of the middle east, cut off aid to israel (they don't really care about anyone but themselves, really they don't), and then we have absolute security, liberty, and economic prosperity.

what could be better? no worries, no deaths, and more money in citizens' pockets. and the founders would no longer be ashamed of us.

If only it were that simple.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: GrGr

'Accidental' is subordinated to 'meeting the objective'. It doesn't matter which way is 'better' when the end result is the same.

That's one of the more ridiculous things I've seen in this thread. Our entire concept of morality and ethics is built around motivation, and I'd wager that you'd agree too if you didn't have an axe to grind.

Motivation: they are fighting for their independence. What is the US fighting for?

My 'axe to grind': I am curios. What axe is that exactly?

How many wedding parties, shepards etc have the Taliban killed? The Afghan population is turning against the occupation for the simple reason they see NATO forces as more murderous than the Taliban, which is something isn't it.

You made the accusation, you should provide numbers to back it up. But my recollection seems to be that the Taliban has killed a LOT of civilians. The reason the Afghan population is upset is not what you suggest, you are just pulling stuff completely out of thin air here. If you have ANYTHING to back up your accusations, I'd love to see it...but I'm not holding my breath.

Does anybody have any numbers? The US does not do body counts of it's civilian victims, they tend to lump them as 'insurgents' or some such.

History of war in Afghanistan

1839 British invade Afghanistan to install compliant king
1842 British retreat from Kabul; 16,500 troops and civilians killed; one survivor
1878-80 Second Anglo-Afghan War
1979 Soviet forces invade to prop up Communist Government
1988-89 Soviets retreat
1989-92 Civil war among warlords
1996 Taleban take over
2001 US-led invasion topples Taleban Government; installs compliant President...

I posted an interesting article in a new thread I opened: Taliban win over locals at the gates of Kabul

 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,960
140
106
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: IGBT
..cry me a river. in other news over 3k americans are slaughtered behind the wheel on our nations roads and byways every month.

You know, I'm not a big fan of people trying to demonize the military, but idiots like you are just as bad. Civilian deaths are never something to trivialize, and we should do our best to avoid them. Being a sociopath is not as helpful as you might think when it comes to winning a conflict like this.

..and of course you buy the propaganda that they were civilian deaths. And once the armed peasants are mush on the ground they suddenly become "inocent civilians". Yes indeed there are useful idiots around willing to take up the cause of the armed peasants.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: IGBT
..cry me a river. in other news over 3k americans are slaughtered behind the wheel on our nations roads and byways every month.

You are dumb beyond repair if you honestly cannot see the difference between war-time casualties and automobile deaths.
 
Aug 24, 2008
25
0
0
i respect that you disagree with me on that, but there's no way we can prove one way or the other to be correct yet; we make our decisions/predictions based upon reasoning, logic, and what's been done and said.

ron paul is likely smarter than all the other candidates from both parties combined, and, no offense or anything, but i'd like to hear someone, anyone, prove to him that it's not that simple especially this early.

i'm a pacifist if i'm allowed to be, but if i'm forced to say who i think the antagonist is, then i'll tell even the most brutal interrogators plain and simple that it's the unconstitutional people who run our unconstitutional govt, NOT al-qaida.

people here do NOT have equal rights to liberties such as freedom of speech and property/money.

the founders intended for us to, but when you put liberals like bush and clinton in office, or rather "power" is a better word and a large part of the nation is dumb enough to agree with them 90% of the time, then only the supporters of the unconstitutional govt (i.e. dictatorship) are happy.

btw, we truly don't have the unconditional right to be pacifists here, because pacifists have their money stolen from them to support one side over the other, and if someone refuses to pay taxes they go to jail, so pacifism isn't truly allowed in this country. youre forced to serve the govt no matter what.

there are no limits on the fbi's power, who they can torture, and how they can do it. they could be just as brutal as the taliban if they want to, depending on who all the people involved are and their personalities. the supreme court justices usually misinterperet the constitution, so that further limits freedoms blatantly intended to be in place by the constitution.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,960
140
106
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: IGBT
..cry me a river. in other news over 3k americans are slaughtered behind the wheel on our nations roads and byways every month.

You are dumb beyond repair if you honestly cannot see the difference between war-time casualties and automobile deaths.

..the dead don't care. dead is dead.

 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: IGBT
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: IGBT
..cry me a river. in other news over 3k americans are slaughtered behind the wheel on our nations roads and byways every month.

You are dumb beyond repair if you honestly cannot see the difference between war-time casualties and automobile deaths.

..the dead don't care. dead is dead.

The families of the dead certainly do care. Now please go back to your regular scheduled Factor rerun.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
As the Taliban uses bombing tactics that kill civilians, that should lose them popular support. At the same time, when the US uses tactics like the indiscriminate use of air power almost guaranteed to cause collateral damage, Nato loses popular support. If that were the only tug of war metric operating, Nato probably would have won the battle for hearts and minds years ago. Because, by in large, on the ground at least,
the Taliban is more brutal than Nato.

But sadly, its clearly not the only metric operating, and just like in Vietnam, over whelming military force is not the the magic bullet. I do not agree with Rainsford when he says----"but the national defense and intelligence business, just like anything else, is a field where the best commentary can often be provided by the people who have experience and knowledge. There can be, and should be, constant evaluation to make sure the job is being done right, but it seems kind of silly for people to draw conclusions about what's going on when they don't really even understand the topic being discussed."

I certainly hope Rainsford is not talking about the same groups of national defense and intelligence experts who helped run the Vietnam War. Because I see zero evidence they are any different today than they were 40 years ago. Or that they constantly evaluate and learn anything in Afghanistan.

With 72,000 Nato troops to police a nation of 31 million, that is a ratio of 1 Nato troop per 430 in the population. And disproportionately placed, in the words of palehorse, many remote villages may not see a single Nato troop for an entire year. Meanwhile, for the average Afghan, the entire country has been in total anarchy for at least the 23 years.

And its that other main metric most of us are missing. Nato is basically fighting the anarchy they have brought with them, and the Taliban, brutal as they are, have the single virtue of offering a corruption free government. And as a local home grown movement, the Taliban will always enjoy a natural advantage over something imported from half a world away. And because Nato has failed to build any real local infrastructure, this Nato occupation done on the total cheap only guarantees a perpetual state of Afghan anarchy where a corrupt Afghan central government empowers corrupt non Taliban thugs who are worse than the Taliban itself.

If we look at the other post GrGr started, it links in an article that somewhat shows that. But I leave GrGr, the right to link into this thread. But the long and short of it is, After six years, even in Kabul itself, the Taliban has set a parallel central government. And when their government works better than the central Government Nato has empowered, Nato is in deep do do.