| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: US raid 'killed 140 Afghans' |
 |
|
| Quote: |
An Afghan investigation has concluded that at least 140 civilians died in US air raids on villages in Farah province last week, the defence ministry has said.
The official announcement on Saturday came a day after the investigative team, headed by an Afghan army general, had presented their findings to Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's president. |
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/2009516132116859535.html
I'm thinking of something not cynical to write. Winning hearts and minds, no.. They hate us for our freedom..nah. What to say?
How would we as North Americans (and the handful of others who post here) react to this in our own country? How would we view the state that did this to us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Obama will rue the day that he decided to claim "ownership" of this war.
The only thing that might save his, and the USA's, reputation is that public opinion in much of the western world long considered Afghanistan to be "the good war", and so Canadians, Europeans etc. can't really demand that the Americans withdraw, without losing a substantial amount of face themselves.
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Karzai demanded the military halt its use of air raids after the incident, but so far the US military has only agreed to review its operations to try to reduce the risk to civilians. |
Can someone with a military background explain to me why we haven't halted the use of our air raids? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Karzai demanded the military halt its use of air raids after the incident, but so far the US military has only agreed to review its operations to try to reduce the risk to civilians. |
Can someone with a military background explain to me why we haven't halted the use of our air raids? |
Because the Taliban are winning and from a political pov it's it's way too risky to be losing our men by sending in too many troops on the ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I have to assume the mission's objectives have not yet been accomplished. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Karzai demanded the military halt its use of air raids after the incident, but so far the US military has only agreed to review its operations to try to reduce the risk to civilians. |
Can someone with a military background explain to me why we haven't halted the use of our air raids? |
Because the Taliban are winning and from a political pov it's it's way too risky to be losing our men by sending in too many troops on the ground. |
Where did you serve?
I want someone who knows what they're talking about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Karzai demanded the military halt its use of air raids after the incident, but so far the US military has only agreed to review its operations to try to reduce the risk to civilians. |
Can someone with a military background explain to me why we haven't halted the use of our air raids? |
Because the Taliban are winning and from a political pov it's it's way too risky to be losing our men by sending in too many troops on the ground. |
Where did you serve?
I want someone who knows what they're talking about. |
OK. The Taliban are losing, and losing scores of ground troops is great PR back home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Would you want to be the one explaining to your men why you are calling for a infantry vs infantry confrontation when you could just as easily call in an airstrike?
Don't mean to sound simplistic but there it is. You use what you have. It is an easy choice for commanders on the ground.
The incidents we read about a drone circling an encampment for 2 hours, then deciding to drop a 1,500 pound bomb on a "insurgent meeting" which turns out to be a wedding party is another story. I'm sorry but that is professional negligence and court martials should ensue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From Human Rights Watch
Airstrikes Cause Public Backlash, Undermine Protection Efforts
| Quote: |
September 7, 2008
Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the chance of a mistake.
Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights WatchCivilian deaths in Afghanistan from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007, with recent deadly airstrikes exacerbating the problem and fuelling a public backlash, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The report also condemns the Taliban�s use of �human shields� in violation of the laws of war.
The 43-page report, ��Troops in Contact�: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan,� analyzes the use of airstrikes by US and NATO forces and resulting civilian casualties, particularly when used to make up for the lack of ground troops and during emergency situations. Human Rights Watch found few civilian deaths resulted from planned airstrikes, while almost all deaths occurred in unplanned airstrikes.
�Rapid response airstrikes have meant higher civilian casualties, while every bomb dropped in populated areas amplifies the chance of a mistake,� said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch. �Mistakes by the US and NATO have dramatically decreased public support for the Afghan government and the presence of international forces providing security to Afghans.�
The report documents how insurgent forces have contributed to the civilian toll from airstrikes by deploying their forces in populated villages, at times with the specific intent to shield their forces from counterattack, a serious violation of the laws of war. Human Rights Watch found several instances where Taliban forces purposefully used civilians as shields to deter US and NATO attacks.
In 2006, at least 929 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 699 died during Taliban attacks (including suicide bombings and other bombings unlawfully targeting civilians) and at least 230 died during US or NATO attacks. Of the latter, 116 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. In 2007, at least 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, some 950 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces, including the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At least 321 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. Thus, civilian deaths from US and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007.
In the first seven months of 2008, at least 540 Afghan civilians were killed in fighting related to the armed conflict. Of those, at least 367 died during attacks by the various insurgent forces and 173 died during US or NATO attacks. At least 119 were killed by US or NATO airstrikes. For all periods cited, Human Rights Watch uses the most conservative figures available.
Human Rights Watch criticized the poor response by US officials when civilian deaths occur. Prior to conducting investigations into airstrikes causing civilian loss, US officials often immediately deny responsibility for civilian deaths or place all blame on the Taliban. US investigations conducted have been unilateral, ponderous, and lacking in transparency, undercutting rather than improving relations with local populations and the Afghan government. A faulty condolence payment system has not provided timely and adequate compensation to assist civilians harmed by US actions.
�The US needs to end the mistakes that are killing so many civilians,� said Adams. �The US must also take responsibility, including by providing timely compensation, when its airstrikes kill Afghan civilians. While Taliban shielding is a factor in some civilian deaths, the US shouldn�t use this as an excuse when it could have taken better precautions. It is, after all, its bombs that are doing the killing.� |
etc
| Quote: |
| Human Rights Watch found that few civilians casualties occurred as the result of planned airstrikes on suspected Taliban targets. Instead, most cases of civilian deaths from airstrikes occurred during the fluid, rapid-response strikes mostly carried out in support of �troops in contact� � ground troops who are under insurgent attack. Such unplanned strikes included situations where US special forces units � normally small in number and lightly armed � came under insurgent attack; in US/NATO attacks in pursuit of insurgent forces who had retreated to populated villages; and in air attacks where US �anticipatory self-defense� rules of engagement applied. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Mr. Obama will rue the day that he decided to claim "ownership" of this war.
The only thing that might save his, and the USA's, reputation is that public opinion in much of the western world long considered Afghanistan to be "the good war", and so Canadians, Europeans etc. can't really demand that the Americans withdraw, without losing a substantial amount of face themselves.
link |
Again, why do you hate America? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/05/2009516132116859535.html
I'm thinking of something not cynical to write. Winning hearts and minds, no.. They hate us for our freedom..nah. What to say?
How would we as North Americans (and the handful of others who post here) react to this in our own country? How would we view the state that did this to us? |
Wow. I'm a bit concerned with the fact that you would immediately take the side of aljazeera reporting.
Oh and it DID happen to us..........I assume you remember 9/11 or has that been whitewalled out of your memory?
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, I went to news.google.com and pulled the first link I could find. There were 4-500 at that time.
849 links now.
http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=d7WFNhCoP_6h1wMMaF7SQMXmOPRnM
Anyways, yes. I remember 9/11. It was terrible. How many 9/11's in body count are necessary for you to satisfy your revenge bloodlust? I want you to be perfectly honest in your reply. How many dead Arabs etc equal 3k dead Americans? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Mr. Obama will rue the day that he decided to claim "ownership" of this war. |
Well did he have a choice / could he really have pulled out?
I think they only thing that'd save his reputation is if Afghanistan starts to become a democracy etc etc.... and then we (the west) can easily claim such deaths were worth it, in the same way huge civilian losses in Iraq have been justified. It'll take a long time however.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmbfan
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Actually, I went to news.google.com and pulled the first link I could find. There were 4-500 at that time.
849 links now.
http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ncl=d7WFNhCoP_6h1wMMaF7SQMXmOPRnM
Anyways, yes. I remember 9/11. It was terrible. How many 9/11's in body count are necessary for you to satisfy your revenge bloodlust? I want you to be perfectly honest in your reply. How many dead Arabs etc equal 3k dead Americans |
My HONEST opinion is I'm glad you are not out on the front lines. Furthmore, you assumed I had a blood lust, then tried to trap me into feeding your arguement by trying justify killing Arabs.
I'm not surprised.
dmbfan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lithium wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
Mr. Obama will rue the day that he decided to claim "ownership" of this war.
The only thing that might save his, and the USA's, reputation is that public opinion in much of the western world long considered Afghanistan to be "the good war", and so Canadians, Europeans etc. can't really demand that the Americans withdraw, without losing a substantial amount of face themselves.
link |
Again, why do you hate America? |
Again, why do you conclude that OTOH hates America? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
