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

Page 5 - 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: IGBT
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.

Haven't you been reading my other posts in this thread going after the folks demonizing our troops? I'm not automatically assuming anything, but considering your post made it clear you don't CARE whether the dead were innocent civilians or not, I figured I should say something about your post as well.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
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.

Believe me when I say that there is room for improvement among military and intelligence planners, but while I find myself somewhat frustrated with our seeming inability to do the job I know we should be able to do, the whole armchair quarterbacking thing is getting a little tiresome as well. It's easy to find fault with the current way things are being run, but I'm not convinced the right causes are being identified, and I'm even less convinced that any of that translates into valid claims that you know how to do it better. The military and intelligence community should of course be open to scrutiny from the public, but it's worth remembering that OP-ED writers probably wouldn't actually be very good at running the occupation.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: libertarian420
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.
Text
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Rather than requote myself, I will quote the Rainsford response.--------------------------------Believe me when I say that there is room for improvement among military and intelligence planners, but while I find myself somewhat frustrated with our seeming inability to do the job I know we should be able to do, the whole armchair quarterbacking thing is getting a little tiresome as well. It's easy to find fault with the current way things are being run, but I'm not convinced the right causes are being identified, and I'm even less convinced that any of that translates into valid claims that you know how to do it better. The military and intelligence community should of course be open to scrutiny from the public, but it's worth remembering that OP-ED writers probably wouldn't actually be very good at running the occupation.

I have to wonder if Rainsford somewhat misses what the P&N forum is about. While its true that OP ed writers may not be able to successfully run military occupations, we also have to wonder if are so called experts are doing any better. But the only way to bring about change is to change policy. And the way its done in the USA is through national elections that we will soon be having.

I dare say almost no one on P&N are actual politicians running for national office, but almost all of us will be voters who will soon be voting for politicians who fit our idea of what correct public policy should be, and the winning set of politician will have a powerful say over a wide range of public policy with Afghan policy just one of a broad range of selection criteria.

And one would hope that a educated about the issues set of voters will be voting. P&N is one of the best forums for a private individual to influence and educate the broad electorate. I have my set of opinions and am depressed about all my political choices in terms of getting a set of politicians who get it on Afghanistan. But I still have to hope all the inconvenienced electrons I have posted on P&N does change the American electorate in some positive way.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rather than requote myself, I will quote the Rainsford response.--------------------------------Believe me when I say that there is room for improvement among military and intelligence planners, but while I find myself somewhat frustrated with our seeming inability to do the job I know we should be able to do, the whole armchair quarterbacking thing is getting a little tiresome as well. It's easy to find fault with the current way things are being run, but I'm not convinced the right causes are being identified, and I'm even less convinced that any of that translates into valid claims that you know how to do it better. The military and intelligence community should of course be open to scrutiny from the public, but it's worth remembering that OP-ED writers probably wouldn't actually be very good at running the occupation.

I have to wonder if Rainsford somewhat misses what the P&N forum is about. While its true that OP ed writers may not be able to successfully run military occupations, we also have to wonder if are so called experts are doing any better. But the only way to bring about change is to change policy. And the way its done in the USA is through national elections that we will soon be having.

I dare say almost no one on P&N are actual politicians running for national office, but almost all of us will be voters who will soon be voting for politicians who fit our idea of what correct public policy should be, and the winning set of politician will have a powerful say over a wide range of public policy with Afghan policy just one of a broad range of selection criteria.

And one would hope that a educated about the issues set of voters will be voting. P&N is one of the best forums for a private individual to influence and educate the broad electorate. I have my set of opinions and am depressed about all my political choices in terms of getting a set of politicians who get it on Afghanistan. But I still have to hope all the inconvenienced electrons I have posted on P&N does change the American electorate in some positive way.

Obviously I appreciate the value of discussions like those that can take place in forums like this or I wouldn't post so frequently and for such a long time here. My issue is not that ordinary citizens are contributing to the national discussion on important issues, I think that's the very foundation of democracy. But while I don't think discussions should be the sole domain of experts, I don't like the direction public debate has been going where the people participating in it feel no need to be educated at all. Opinions don't have value simply by being voiced, the way democracy is supposed to work is by having an INFORMED electorate. There is greater opportunity than ever for people to get informed and share their views with others, but while the latter is being done with gusto, I think people are ignoring the former.

To offer another example, much of the pro-warrantless wiretapping debate frustrates me to no end. You have all these people who clearly wouldn't know SIGINT collection from a hole in the ground saying that getting actionable intelligence on terrorists requires greatly expanded government authority to "wiretap". Are they basing this on being experts in the field, or even being at all educated on the topic? The fact that they frequently reference "fiber optic cables" as justification leads me to believe that they are not.

The same thing is happening (in some cases) with this debate, and it's happening in many other areas of discussion as well. It's not so much that average folks are contributing to the discussion, I think that's great, it's that they seem to often be doing it without actually bothering to learn anything about the topic. And worse, they dismiss any attempts to educate them as propaganda if it doesn't fit their pre-existing beliefs. I'm not saying take everything folks like palehorse say at face value, but the quick and nasty dismissal of someone who has been there by someone who has not seems to be pretty silly to me. I have a hard time believing THIS is the best we can do when it comes to public debate.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Rather than requote myself, I will quote the Rainsford response.--------------------------------Believe me when I say that there is room for improvement among military and intelligence planners, but while I find myself somewhat frustrated with our seeming inability to do the job I know we should be able to do, the whole armchair quarterbacking thing is getting a little tiresome as well. It's easy to find fault with the current way things are being run, but I'm not convinced the right causes are being identified, and I'm even less convinced that any of that translates into valid claims that you know how to do it better. The military and intelligence community should of course be open to scrutiny from the public, but it's worth remembering that OP-ED writers probably wouldn't actually be very good at running the occupation.

I have to wonder if Rainsford somewhat misses what the P&N forum is about. While its true that OP ed writers may not be able to successfully run military occupations, we also have to wonder if are so called experts are doing any better. But the only way to bring about change is to change policy. And the way its done in the USA is through national elections that we will soon be having.

I dare say almost no one on P&N are actual politicians running for national office, but almost all of us will be voters who will soon be voting for politicians who fit our idea of what correct public policy should be, and the winning set of politician will have a powerful say over a wide range of public policy with Afghan policy just one of a broad range of selection criteria.

And one would hope that a educated about the issues set of voters will be voting. P&N is one of the best forums for a private individual to influence and educate the broad electorate. I have my set of opinions and am depressed about all my political choices in terms of getting a set of politicians who get it on Afghanistan. But I still have to hope all the inconvenienced electrons I have posted on P&N does change the American electorate in some positive way.

Excellent post albeit long winded.

Bottom line is only choice is stay the course or change clubhouse leadership.

It's sad to see so many willing to stay the course after nearly a decade of ruin.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Pakistan bans main Taliban militant outfit

The [Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan] has been blamed for most of the attacks in which nearly 1,200 people have been killed since July last year.
US and Afghan officials say the rebels use sanctuaries in the rugged tribal border regions to train, regroup and launch attacks on international troops in Afghanistan

And some of you think it's not worth the fight? Ya...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I can see why palehorse may see this as very good news, but I seriously doubt it will ever turn into Pakistani permission to allow US military intervention into Pakistani tribal regions.

Nato may have some political support from the man on the street in Afghanistan, but Nato support inside of the Pakistani tribal regions is damn near zero.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I can see why palehorse may see this as very good news, but I seriously doubt it will ever turn into Pakistani permission to allow US military intervention into Pakistani tribal regions.

Nato may have some political support from the man on the street in Afghanistan, but Nato support inside of the Pakistani tribal regions is damn near zero.

I won't jump for joy until we're given permission to annhilate the Talibans' entire support structure, regardless of borders. Until that happens, we're fighting with both hands tied behind our back.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I can see why palehorse may see this as very good news, but I seriously doubt it will ever turn into Pakistani permission to allow US military intervention into Pakistani tribal regions.

Nato may have some political support from the man on the street in Afghanistan, but Nato support inside of the Pakistani tribal regions is damn near zero.

I won't jump for joy until we're given permission to annhilate the Talibans' entire support structure, regardless of borders. Until that happens, we're fighting with both hands tied behind our back.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That seems to be our main area of disagreement palehorse on thread after thread, of course palehorse desire to kill all Taliban is totally unrealistic with a Nato force that numbers only 72,000.

And while we both agree that Nato needs far more troops and far more funding for economic development, its only the last thread where palehorse really defined what he would do with more troops, and that is to widen the war into Pakistan and any other country the Taliban tried to flee to as he proves he does not care about the Afghan people.

Sadly palehorse does not understand, a political idea cannot be killed by guns, ideas can only be defeated by better implementations of better ideas.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly palehorse does not understand, a political idea cannot be killed by guns, ideas can only be defeated by better implementations of better ideas.

In terms of humanity, the Taliban could only be compared to the genocidal maniacs running rampant in Africa... whereas Lemon Law might refer to them as "misguided politicians," I see them as the demonic creatures that they are.

As I said all along, I support the idea of implementing ideological and economic change throughout the region; but, only if those things are done in concert with an effort to totally and completely destroy the existing Taliban facilities, leadership, support structure, and personnel.

Why?

Simple. The Taliban cannot be "reformed." Those who already have the sickness are beyond negotiation and reconciliation. Each and every one of them, whom I've ever met, is well beyond that possibility. They are totally and completely out-to-lunch... all of them! Each and every last one of their membership believes that wanton rape and murder are completely legitimate forms of "governance." To a man, they will violently resist any and all forms of "economic stimulus," "infrastructure enhancement," or "educational reform." The very basis of your "plan," those items, is what they are fighting against! How the hell do you plan to bring those things to the tribal regions of Northwest Pakistan?! Through osmosis!? The Taliban simply won't let those things in; and, instead, they'll continue to export their violence into neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan until the cows come home!.... or, until we utterly fucking destroy them!.

So, until you get that part through your head, you'll remain in the dark where you've been lurking for all these years... you may have some swell wikipedia facts rolling around in your head, but none of them are useful unless you throw in a cold dose of reality and accept the fact that your precious goals can't be met until the Taliban Brick Wall is torn down with equally brutal and unhindered force.

Every last Taliban brick must be smashed into dust before any possible reforms can take root.

good luck.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly palehorse does not understand, a political idea cannot be killed by guns, ideas can only be defeated by better implementations of better ideas.

In terms of humanity, the Taliban could only be compared to the genocidal maniacs running rampant in Africa... whereas Lemon Law might refer to them as "misguided politicians," I see them as the demonic creatures that they are.

As I said all along, I support the idea of implementing ideological and economic change throughout the region; but, only if those things are done in concert with an effort to totally and completely destroy the existing Taliban facilities, leadership, support structure, and personnel.

Why?

Simple. The Taliban cannot be "reformed." Those who already have the sickness are beyond negotiation and reconciliation. Each and every one of them, whom I've ever met, is well beyond that possibility. They are totally and completely out-to-lunch... all of them! Each and every last one of their membership believes that wanton rape and murder are completely legitimate forms of "governance." To a man, they will violently resist any and all forms of "economic stimulus," "infrastructure enhancement," or "educational reform." The very basis of your "plan," those items, is what they are fighting against! How the hell do you plan to bring those things to the tribal regions of Northwest Pakistan?! Through osmosis!? The Taliban simply won't let those things in; and, instead, they'll continue to export their violence into neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan until the cows come home!.... or, until we utterly fucking destroy them!.

So, until you get that part through your head, you'll remain in the dark where you've been lurking for all these years... you may have some swell wikipedia facts rolling around in your head, but none of them are useful unless you throw in a cold dose of reality and accept the fact that your precious goals can't be met until the Taliban Brick Wall is torn down with equally brutal and unhindered force.

Every last Taliban brick must be smashed into dust before any possible reforms can take root.

good luck.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then by your own words, no progress will ever occur in Afghanistan or Pakistan if totally destroy the opposition is the metric. As two totally pig headed forces fight themselves to a standstill, all you do is give the Afghan and Pakistani people ample reason to expel you and your kill kill kill ideas because you are exactly the moral equivalent of the Taliban.

You are already six years into your goal of forever, my taxpayer bucks say call you home and give you a dope slap, because your ideas flat out will not and can not work in any modern or even primitive world. What part of your continuous failure are you advocating.
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse

In terms of humanity, the Taliban could only be compared to the genocidal maniacs running rampant in Africa... whereas Lemon Law might refer to them as "misguided politicians," I see them as the demonic creatures that they are.

As I said all along, I support the idea of implementing ideological and economic change throughout the region; but, only if those things are done in concert with an effort to totally and completely destroy the existing Taliban facilities, leadership, support structure, and personnel.

Why?

Simple. The Taliban cannot be "reformed." Those who already have the sickness are beyond negotiation and reconciliation. Each and every one of them, whom I've ever met, is well beyond that possibility. They are totally and completely out-to-lunch... all of them! Each and every last one of their membership believes that wanton rape and murder are completely legitimate forms of "governance." To a man, they will violently resist any and all forms of "economic stimulus," "infrastructure enhancement," or "educational reform." The very basis of your "plan," those items, is what they are fighting against! How the hell do you plan to bring those things to the tribal regions of Northwest Pakistan?! Through osmosis!? The Taliban simply won't let those things in; and, instead, they'll continue to export their violence into neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan until the cows come home!.... or, until we utterly fucking destroy them!.

So, until you get that part through your head, you'll remain in the dark where you've been lurking for all these years... you may have some swell wikipedia facts rolling around in your head, but none of them are useful unless you throw in a cold dose of reality and accept the fact that your precious goals can't be met until the Taliban Brick Wall is torn down with equally brutal and unhindered force.

Every last Taliban brick must be smashed into dust before any possible reforms can take root.

good luck.

This is the problem in a nutshell.

Why people won't/don't see what is really happening there and what it will take to free these people is mind numbing.

We had a good start and then got sidetracked with Iraq - thanks GWB.


 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Lemon law
you are exactly the moral equivalent of the Taliban.


Wow. I dont even know how to respond...
You don't have to. If LL has to resort to that sort of lame accusation it demonstrates the complete and total weakness of his argument in the first place.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Lemon law
you are exactly the moral equivalent of the Taliban.


Wow. I dont even know how to respond...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To a certain extent, nick1985, you, I, and palehorse don't really get a vote on that question. Only the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan really get a vote in the matter.
And we must remember than the Taliban is a local home grown movement that previously won out because the alternatives of anarchy and government by corrupt war lords were even worse.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Lemon law
you are exactly the moral equivalent of the Taliban.


Wow. I dont even know how to respond...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To a certain extent, nick1985, you, I, and palehorse don't really get a vote on that question.

Yes we do. I dont see our soldiers putting our rifles up women's vaginas and shooting. Dont compare what we do to what the Taliban does, we all know its fucking stupid.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Lemon law
you are exactly the moral equivalent of the Taliban.


Wow. I dont even know how to respond...
You don't have to. If LL has to resort to that sort of lame accusation it demonstrates the complete and total weakness of his argument in the first place.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No TLC, it demonstrates that you don't understand people. We have had six long years to test palehorse ideas, and each and every year those ideas do worse and worse and worse in terms of results.

As you and many others look at it only from the GWB&co neocon viewpoint, and smarter people try to look at it from the group dynamics of the people being occupied.

Military occupations are hardly new things in world history and as such are well studied by even our military academies. What we are basically seeing is Shinseki being vindicated again and again. Either the occupying forces have the troops required to quickly establish law, order, and justice followed by infrastructure repairs or the occupation always fails.

We are making minimal progress in Iraq because we are using political means to effect change, but in Afghanistan we are failing badly on all counts.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Lemon law

We are making minimal progress in Iraq

LOL...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To nick1985,

Is your mind so small that it can't understand how fragile Iraq really is? The mission accomplished banner has been flown before in Iraq and Vietnam. At least TLC can articulate reasons for optimism, and you rest on mere assumption.

My position on the Iraq is far more complex and I stand on my minimal statement. And before you accuse me of being all gloom and doom, I suggest you read some of my past posts, because my prediction is no prediction.

There are deep political rifts in Iraq, the Iraqi insurgencies are stronger and better armed than ever, and they will not give up power easily. If you read your history, in many such situations, such divisions can be papered over for years, and then one incident or another causes everything to come unraveled.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sadly palehorse does not understand, a political idea cannot be killed by guns, ideas can only be defeated by better implementations of better ideas.

In terms of humanity, the Taliban could only be compared to the genocidal maniacs running rampant in Africa... whereas Lemon Law might refer to them as "misguided politicians," I see them as the demonic creatures that they are.

As I said all along, I support the idea of implementing ideological and economic change throughout the region; but, only if those things are done in concert with an effort to totally and completely destroy the existing Taliban facilities, leadership, support structure, and personnel.

Why?

Simple. The Taliban cannot be "reformed." Those who already have the sickness are beyond negotiation and reconciliation. Each and every one of them, whom I've ever met, is well beyond that possibility. They are totally and completely out-to-lunch... all of them! Each and every last one of their membership believes that wanton rape and murder are completely legitimate forms of "governance." To a man, they will violently resist any and all forms of "economic stimulus," "infrastructure enhancement," or "educational reform." The very basis of your "plan," those items, is what they are fighting against! How the hell do you plan to bring those things to the tribal regions of Northwest Pakistan?! Through osmosis!? The Taliban simply won't let those things in; and, instead, they'll continue to export their violence into neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan until the cows come home!.... or, until we utterly fucking destroy them!.

So, until you get that part through your head, you'll remain in the dark where you've been lurking for all these years... you may have some swell wikipedia facts rolling around in your head, but none of them are useful unless you throw in a cold dose of reality and accept the fact that your precious goals can't be met until the Taliban Brick Wall is torn down with equally brutal and unhindered force.

Every last Taliban brick must be smashed into dust before any possible reforms can take root.

good luck.

Heh, nice bit of projection and moral superiority there. So after having killed about a million or so Iraqis it is time to move the show to the Afghani/Pakistani mountains? How many people do you estimate you will have to kill before they bow down before US bombers, assassin drones and moral superiority?






 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76

Afghanistan demands end to Nato air strikes on villagers
UN backs Karzai concerns over loss of civilian life in allied raids
The Guardian

Photograph: A doctor treats an Afghan girl injured in a Nato air raid. Photograph: Reza Shirmohammadi/Getty

Tensions increased today between Afghanistan's president, Hamid Karzai, and US and Nato troops, with the government ordering a review of foreign military activities amid claims that dozens of civilians have died in raids and air strikes over the past week.

The ministries of foreign affairs and defence said they would seek to regulate raids with a status of forces agreement and a negotiated end to "air strikes on civilian targets, uncoordinated house searches and illegal detention of Afghan civilians".

The UN mission in Afghanistan has backed the government. Afghan and foreign soldiers entered the village of Nawabad in Shindand district last Friday and called in air strikes, villagers told UN investigators.

The UN special envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, said in a statement that an investigation "found convincing evidence, based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and others, that some 90 civilians were killed, including 60 children, 15 women and 15 men. Fifteen other villagers were wounded.


"The destruction from aerial bombardment was clearly evident with seven to eight houses having been destroyed, with serious damage to many others," Eide said. "Local residents were able to confirm the number of casualties, including names, age and gender of the victims.

"This is matter of grave concern to the United Nations. I have repeatedly made clear that the safety and welfare of civilians must be considered above all else during the planning and conduct of all military operations.

"The impact of such operations undermines the trust and confidence of the Afghan people in efforts to build a just, peaceful and law-abiding state."

The US military has launched an investigation after saying it was unaware of any civilians killed. An American spokesman said the strike targeted a known Taliban commander and killed 30 militants.

Captain Mike Windsor, a spokesman for Nato, said the force had not received any official notification about the government decision. He said Nato's mission was based on a UN mandate and carried out at the invitation of the Afghan government.

In an angry statement, the government said officials had "repeatedly discussed the issue of civilian casualties with the international forces and asked for all air raids on civilian targets, especially in Afghan villages, to be stopped".

"The issues of uncoordinated house searches and harassing civilians have also been of concern to the government of Afghanistan, which has been shared with the commanders of international forces in Afghanistan," it said.

"Unfortunately, to date, our demands have not been addressed. Rather, more civilians, including women and children, are losing their lives as a result of air raids.
"

....

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
As an update, its now definitive because a UN human rights team has returned and weighted in. Sadly its even worse than initially stated in terms of the number of civilians killed, with the youngest being all of three months old.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08...ml?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

That will teach the three month old infant to get too close to Taliban members. 90 down, only 31 million to go according to palehorse and JOS.

 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Lemon law

We are making minimal progress in Iraq

LOL...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To nick1985,

Is your mind so small that it can't understand how fragile Iraq really is?

Are you too fucking retarded to see that in the past year there has been massive progress in Iraq?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: GrGr
Heh, nice bit of projection and moral superiority there. So after having killed about a million or so Iraqis it is time to move the show to the Afghani/Pakistani mountains? How many people do you estimate you will have to kill before they bow down before US bombers, assassin drones and moral superiority?

I am morally superior to any member of the Taliban. That's a fact.

Why? That's simple. I fight against the wanton rape and murder of truly innocent people, not for it. That single difference is what makes my above statement fact.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
That will teach the three month old infant to get too close to Taliban members. 90 down, only 31 million to go according to palehorse and JOS.
I have never called for the killing of truly innocent civilians. In fact, when accidents such as this occur, I am saddened beyond anything you can possibly understand. I know that each accidental civilian casualty is a black eye for NATO, the U.S., and my own efforts to secure peace in that region.

So, you can fucking stick your bullshit accusation straight up in to the place you pull all of your opinions from; that is, if there's room in there in or around your head.