More kids killed by Brave Nato in Afghanistan

[politicsisrotten]

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Foreign and Afghan forces accidentally killed five children in two separate operations Monday, further undermining President Hamid Karzai after he demanded a halt to attacks in civilian areas.

The issue is a particularly sensitive topic in Afghanistan following the Aug. 22 bombing of the village of Azizabad in Herat province by the U.S.-led coalition. An Afghan government commission said 90 civilians were killed, a finding backed by a preliminary U.N. report.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[badinage]

While I think the US Air Force needs to be reigned in, didn't I read recently that the majority of civilian deaths are caused by the Taliban (and far more often at close range and deliberately). Do you start threads whenever you hear of Taliban-related civilian deaths also, or is this a one-dimensional dig at NATO?

Or are you making some kind of strategic point about the need to replace air power with greater infantry forces?

Or are you saying that the counter-insurgency cannot be fought without an unacceptable number of casualties caused by air power, and thus the whole mission should be scrapped? In which case you need to define unacceptable number of casualties, balancing the likely casualties from a heavier full-scale civil war which would result from a coalition-forces withdrawal, and the likely improvement or deterioration in standard of living of the average Pushtun and non-Pushtun Afghan in a post-civil war Taliban-administered Afghanistan.

Its the one-dimensional dig, right?

[politicsisrotten]

While I think the US Air Force needs to be reigned in, didn't I read recently that the majority of civilian deaths are caused by the Taliban (and far more often at close range and deliberately). Do you start threads whenever you hear of Taliban-related civilian deaths also, or is this a one-dimensional dig at NATO?

Or are you making some kind of strategic point about the need to replace air power with greater infantry forces?

Or are you saying that the counter-insurgency cannot be fought without an unacceptable number of casualties caused by air power, and thus the whole mission should be scrapped? In which case you need to define unacceptable number of casualties, balancing the likely casualties from a heavier full-scale civil war which would result from a coalition-forces withdrawal.

Its the one-dimensional dig, right?

Yep as simple as that,they should'nt be there period! In my opinion Nato should not even exist.

[badinage]

So you don't give a f*ck about the Afghan people? You don't care if their level of suffering is substantially increased if NATO and other international forces withdraw (its not just NATO - there are Irish Army soldiers there too)? You just hate NATO that much?

Or you believe their level of suffering would decrease if the international forces withdrew?

If its the former, why should I or anyone else take your opinion in the slightest bit seriously?

[politicsisrotten]

So you don't give a f*ck about the Afghan people? You don't care if their level of suffering is substantially increased if NATO and other international forces withdraw (its not just NATO - there are Irish Army soldiers there too)? You just hate NATO that much?

Or you believe their level of suffering would decrease if the international forces withdrew?

If its the former, why should I or anyone else take your opinion in the slightest bit seriously?

All armed forces should take care of their own back yard and nothing else,The Afghan people? who are the Afghan people?

[badinage]

Who are the Afghan people? The people who live in Afghanistan. No I don't think there's an Afghan nation, personally I think a separate Pushtun nation-state should be created.

As for your point about armed forces. If we followed that principle, the Third Reich might still be occupying Poland and half of Europe.

[Thac0man]

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Foreign and Afghan forces accidentally killed five children in two separate operations Monday, further undermining President Hamid Karzai after he demanded a halt to attacks in civilian areas.

The issue is a particularly sensitive topic in Afghanistan following the Aug. 22 bombing of the village of Azizabad in Herat province by the U.S.-led coalition. An Afghan government commission said 90 civilians were killed, a finding backed by a preliminary U.N. report.



http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

These and the previous civilain deaths are deplorable. But are there any calls from within the Taliban to cease their operations in civilian areas? Or even deliberate attacks upon civilians?

I am not being argumentitive, but these anti-Afghan government lines of debate are usually started with the aim of ultimitely equating the Taliban with the Afghan government in terms of legitimacy. They rarely, actually never, stray into the area of analysing deliberate Taliban war crimes (which are still ongoing). Its a rare thing to hear their actions condemned at all by those apparently concerned for the lot of the Afghan people.

[ForYourInfo]

"More than 500 civilians were killed during operations by foreign forces last year"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews ... 0920080312

Was it Bush who said there can be no democracy under foreign occupation, or some other flunky?

(of course he was talking about Lebanon and Syria, but what the heck)

[The OD]

Theres a simple way to look at this, if you disagree, you have americanaphobia:

Coalition Forces - Bad
Afghan Forces - Bad
Local Militia & warlords - very bad
Taliban - evil

I dont support the Invasion, but I understand it. I dont agree with it, but if I was an afghani, I would much prefer to have the Coalition knocking down my door than the Taliban. At the very least, if you get killed by the coaltion, I imagine its quite quick, if its the Taliban, I'd say being crushed by a wall, having burning rags stuffed into your mouth or other orifice, being whipped to death or worse (if thats possible) would be on the agenda.

As for the coalition, at the very least, if they do something like kill civilians, we can at least have someone to rail at, do the Taliban worry about their image? Are they afraid that their actions will be posted on liveleak?

[CelticAtheist]

While I think the US Air Force needs to be reigned in, didn't I read recently that the majority of civilian deaths are caused by the Taliban (and far more often at close range and deliberately). Do you start threads whenever you hear of Taliban-related civilian deaths also, or is this a one-dimensional dig at NATO?

Or are you making some kind of strategic point about the need to replace air power with greater infantry forces?

Or are you saying that the counter-insurgency cannot be fought without an unacceptable number of casualties caused by air power, and thus the whole mission should be scrapped? In which case you need to define unacceptable number of casualties, balancing the likely casualties from a heavier full-scale civil war which would result from a coalition-forces withdrawal.

Its the one-dimensional dig, right?

Yep as simple as that,they should'nt be there period! In my opinion Nato should not even exist.

I presume the pixie army or God will save us from the Russians then, right?