How not to end terrorism-Kill civilians...

MrBrian · October 2008

The United States has concluded its promised inquiry into August’s air strike in Afghanistan’s Herat Province. Both Afghan and UN investigations concluded that the US strike killed at least 90 civilians, most of them children.

The US hotly disputed the toll, claiming initially that no civilians were killed, then later revising the number up to 5-7 civilians. They also accused Afghan civilians who claimed a higher toll of spreading “outrageous Taliban propaganda.” They were forced to reexamine their findings, however, when video evidence of the toll went public.

The investigator, Brigadier General Michael Callan, determined that many more civilians were killed than officials had previously claimed. He still put the number at only “more than 30,” still quite a bit below the other accounts. The report also insists that the strike was on a “legitimate target” and does not recommend any punishment for those involved.

This claim is likely to cause further tensions with Afghanistan, as President Hamid Karzai has maintained that the air strikes were on a faulty target and based on “total misinformation fed to the coalition forces.” President Karzai has also promised “punishment” for those responsible for the incident. Interior Ministry spokesman Zemery Bashary said he had not seen the report, but that the Afghan government stood behind its original findings.

In fact Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman says he wouldn’t even characterize the initial US report a “wrong,” claiming rather that “sometimes the truth can change.”

It is still unclear how the US military came to its initial conclusions, though the New York Times quotes one military official as saying they were only able to conduct a limited assessment because they feared retaliation from villagers. Why they chose to present incomplete findings as the absolute truth in spite of more thorough investigations claiming such dramatically different numbers is even less clear. At the time, US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad attributed the difference to “a fog of war.”

Senior military commander General David McKiernan says that he issued a “revised tactical order” after the air strike, though he did concede that most of the rules were already in place at the time and the revised order simply “re-emphasized” them.

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/07/us-inquiry-revises-herat-civilian-toll-still-disputes-un-afghan-accounts/

jimed14 · October 2008

Someone should remind the McCain campaign (notably Gov Palin), that indeed, the folks in the middle east don't hate us because of our freedom, they hate us because of our bombs.

I've heard her say several times on the stump over the past week that it's unpatriotic that Obama stated a year ago "we are airraiding villages" ... but, in actuality, the truth hurts ...

Commy · October 2008

one thing that makes it hard for me to vote for either Obama Or Mccain was during the debate last night they both said that America stands for 'good' in the world. That it is a good force in the world.

that's like Adolph saying he was just helping the Jews. pure bullshit.

jimed14 · October 2008

Commy wrote:

one thing that makes it hard for me to vote for either Obama Or Mccain was during the debate last night they both said that America stands for 'good' in the world. That it is a good force in the world.

that's like Adolph saying he was just helping the Jews. pure bullshit.

c'mon ... neither Obama nor McCain want to extinguish a race off the planet.

I'm not for a lot of this military tough talk, but, saying they are like Hitler is really a stretch.

Commy · October 2008

jimed14 wrote:

c'mon ... neither Obama nor McCain want to extinguish a race off the planet.

I'm not for a lot of this military tough talk, but, saying they are like Hitler is really a stretch.

in 2000 the IMF and WB had loans to 163 countries. Countries are required to make "structural adjustments" before they can even take these loans, more exporting, less labor laws, lowered environmental restraints, lower minum wages, things like that. In over 90% of the countries who took these loans, things that mattered-life expectancy, poverty, infant mortality rates, things like that were all much worse. Number of hospitals, doctors, and so on. IMF and WB are US run institutions.

In the late 90's, according to the UN 11-13 million people die every year from easily curable diseases or starvation. The majority of these people are dying in countries affected by the IMF or the WB.

There's your american holocaust.

jimed14 · October 2008

Commy wrote:

in 2000 the IMF and WB had loans to 163 countries. Countries are required to make "structural adjustments" before they can even take these loans, more exporting, less labor laws, lowered environmental restraints, lower minum wages, things like that. In over 90% of the countries who took these loans, things that mattered-life expectancy, poverty, infant mortality rates, things like that were all much worse. Number of hospitals, doctors, and so on. IMF and WB are US run institutions.

In the late 90's, according to the UN 11-13 million people die every year from easily curable diseases or starvation. The majority of these people are dying in countries affected by the IMF or the WB.

There's your american holocaust.

I'd love to see these stats and definitive connections to these two orgainizations cited somewhere ... I've heard criticisms of the WB before (exploitation), but, nothing along the lines of it wanting to wipe a race of people off the planet.

And indeed, there are millions of people dying of starvarion and disease around the world, I'm sure most of us would rather put resources towards helping those issues instead of fighting wars ... but, to call it Hitler like agian, is a real stretch.

MrBrian · October 2008

US Report Declares Herat Strike “Legitimate Self-Defense”

---

Case closed,

OffHeGoes29 · October 2008

You have no idea as to all the facts involved. What about the fact that they fire from houses with families inside, store arms and ammo in Mosques, blend in with the local population and use them and cannon fodder for our media to paint as a US genocide. Some how I doubt any of you or the media covering this story knows or care to publish the whole truth, unless you're an expert on asymmetrical warfare and close air support?

They don't value life like we do; ask anyone who has been there. They don't share compassion like in the West. I'm not being a racist prick, it’s the truth, ask around to people who have been there. It’s a hard way of life there, and it means nothing for them to use civilians as pawns, just to give ammo to divide us at home.

Please get your facts together.

OffHeGoes29 · October 2008

Commy wrote:

one thing that makes it hard for me to vote for either Obama Or Mccain was during the debate last night they both said that America stands for 'good' in the world. That it is a good force in the world.

that's like Adolph saying he was just helping the Jews. pure bullshit.

Why do you live here in America if its so bad? Canada will take you, shit even Mexico.

I couldn't live in this country for more than a second if I honestly thought it was as bad as you say it is.

Commy · October 2008

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

You have no idea as to all the facts involved. What about the fact that they fire from houses with families inside, store arms and ammo in Mosques, blend in with the local population and use them and cannon fodder for our media to paint as a US genocide. Some how I doubt any of you or the media covering this story knows or care to publish the whole truth, unless you're an expert on asymmetrical warfare and close air support?

They don't value life like we do; ask anyone who has been there. They don't share compassion like in the West. I'm not being a racist prick, it’s the truth, ask around to people who have been there. It’s a hard way of life there, and it means nothing for them to use civilians as pawns, just to give ammo to divide us at home.

Please get your facts together.

they don't value life like we do? they are different from us?

That is a racist comment. They are human beings, exactly like you and me.

OffHeGoes29 · October 2008

Commy wrote:

they don't value life like we do? they are different from us?

That is a racist comment. They are human beings, exactly like you and me.

Its true, they don't value life like the west. Try to convince them of that. Ask any vet who has been there and worked with them and they will tell you the same. Infact, if you have ever been out side North America and Europe you will see that the rest of the world doesn't value life like we do. Its nothing for someone to die in countries that have a low standard of living. They are human, they face reality, if you seen how it works you would understand.

You have a real bad habbit of turning facts around and putting words in people's mouths. You've done it to me, and done to other people on this board. Don't call me a racist.

Commy · October 2008

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Its true, they don't value life like the west. Try to convince them of that. Ask any vet who has been there and worked with them and they will tell you the same. Infact, if you have ever been out side North America and Europe you will see that the rest of the world doesn't value life like we do. Its nothing for someone to die in countries that have a low standard of living. They are human, they face reality, if you seen how it works you would understand.

You have a real bad habbit of turning facts around and putting words in people's mouths. You've done it to me, and done to other people on this board. Don't call me a racist.

I think you are forgetting that we have troops in their country. And have just bombed and very violently killed 60 children.

What would you say if they had troops in our country and did the same?

Would you still defend their actions?

And maybe racist isn't the right term here, maybe nationalist is. Either way you're defending terrorism.

OffHeGoes29 · October 2008

Commy wrote:

I think you are forgetting that we have troops in their country. And have just bombed and very violently killed 60 children.

What would you say if they had troops in our country and did the same?

Would you still defend their actions?

And maybe racist isn't the right term here, maybe nationalist is. Either way you're defending terrorism.

Not even one child's life should be taken lightly, but you have to understand something. The nature of what we got ourselves into is not an easy thing to accomplish. This isn't something that can be wrapped up in a couple of months, this isn't something that will guarantee the safety of noncombatants...they are very much apart of this war due to the nature of it. Not by our choosing, the United States did not get into a conflict to kill civilians...that’s not why I joined and that’s not why everyone else joined. You have to trust me on this that the US military goes out of its way to avoid civilian deaths. They do this on purpose, they will gladly expose their own women and children to this danger just to divide us at home. Once again, they don't value life.

I know for a fact that no one in the US military would knowingly call in an air strike on civilians. People go to jail for that sort of thing, there are a set of rules called Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). The military takes this VERY seriously, and follows them closer than any other army in the world.

The military knows the key to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan are its civilian population, and they are not going to throw that away.

You have a very skewed picture of how this works. I don't blame you because you have no knowledge of it.

And to answer your question, I wouldn't support any army that KNOWINGLY killed civilians on purpose. I would raise the question as to why some one here in the states would expose women and children to combat just to sacrifice them for public support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOAC

I got to get to bed, you can call me names later

Have a good night

Drowned Out · October 2008

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

You have no idea as to all the facts involved. What about the fact that they fire from houses with families inside, store arms and ammo in Mosques, blend in with the local population and use them and cannon fodder for our media to paint as a US genocide. Some how I doubt any of you or the media covering this story knows or care to publish the whole truth, unless you're an expert on asymmetrical warfare and close air support?

They don't value life like we do; ask anyone who has been there. They don't share compassion like in the West. I'm not being a racist prick, it’s the truth, ask around to people who have been there. It’s a hard way of life there, and it means nothing for them to use civilians as pawns, just to give ammo to divide us at home.

Please get your facts together.

They don't value life like we do? :mad:
do you honestly think that when you watch an Afghan father holding a shredded infant, that he is feeling any less despair than you or I would? If you're going to generalize about people's attitude toward death as some kind of behavioural subculture in Afghanistan, you should look at why. Look at what has happened in that country in the last 30 years alone!

If there is any truth to what you're saying about their value of life, I'm sure much of it has to do with a turn to faith to help with their fear of getting their fucking asses 'close air supported'....not to mention that many are likely numb and indoctrinated to the violence that the US, Russia, the Taliban, and the whole 'coalition of the willing' has inflicted upon them. much the same as how you have been indoctrinated to defend this kind of shit.

g under p · October 2008

Commy wrote:

one thing that makes it hard for me to vote for either Obama Or Mccain was during the debate last night they both said that America stands for 'good' in the world. That it is a good force in the world.

that's like Adolph saying he was just helping the Jews. pure bullshit.

They're not the only ones saying that checkout the signiture. GWB has been saying for a long time now.

Peace

MrBrian · October 2008

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Not even one child's life should be taken lightly, but you have to understand something. The nature of what we got ourselves into is not an easy thing to accomplish. This isn't something that can be wrapped up in a couple of months, this isn't something that will guarantee the safety of noncombatants...they are very much apart of this war due to the nature of it. Not by our choosing, the United States did not get into a conflict to kill civilians...that’s not why I joined and that’s not why everyone else joined. You have to trust me on this that the US military goes out of its way to avoid civilian deaths.

So America knows that these 'terrorists' hide with fams and innocents, so tell me, if the American army knows this, and does everything it can to avoid killing innocents (as you/they say), why call in air strikes like these for starters? Because at the end of the day, America does not care about those lives. and again just incase you missed the point, yes America does not have a Doctrine of "go kill innocents"...But they don't care if they do.

America cares who it's killing? I'm sorry, but you don't carpet bomb or drop giant bombs and say that they/you do everything you can to prevent the loss of innocent life.
In Iraq, America (these are facts) dropped many chemicals,DU and so on. How many innocent lives have these killed? Even after the bomb was dropped. Years later.

Nevertheless you are correct when you say that America did not get into this war to kill civilians, America got into this war for a list of Other reasons. None fair or just.

The war against terrorism has done nothing but create more terrorism and terrorists.

and you talk about rules? When does America follow rules? They break rules,laws every single day. America Is in no position to do anything but fix it's own problems in it's own country. Which funny enough they can't do, because they have no money. But they have bombs, and bombs are what they use to try and fix other countries...hmmmm

Perhaps America needs to bomb itself?

Drowned Out · October 2008

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Not even one child's life should be taken lightly, but you have to understand something. The nature of what we got ourselves into is not an easy thing to accomplish. This isn't something that can be wrapped up in a couple of months, this isn't something that will guarantee the safety of noncombatants...they are very much apart of this war due to the nature of it. Not by our choosing, the United States did not get into a conflict to kill civilians...that’s not why I joined and that’s not why everyone else joined. You have to trust me on this that the US military goes out of its way to avoid civilian deaths. They do this on purpose, they will gladly expose their own women and children to this danger just to divide us at home. Once again, they don't value life.

I know for a fact that no one in the US military would knowingly call in an air strike on civilians. People go to jail for that sort of thing, there are a set of rules called Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). The military takes this VERY seriously, and follows them closer than any other army in the world.

The military knows the key to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan are its civilian population, and they are not going to throw that away.

You have a very skewed picture of how this works. I don't blame you because you have no knowledge of it.

And to answer your question, I wouldn't support any army that KNOWINGLY killed civilians on purpose. I would raise the question as to why some one here in the states would expose women and children to combat just to sacrifice them for public support.

I'm sure there are radicals there that don't care about exposing civilians to the bombs, but you are painting with WAY too broad a stroke.

I think people know all about indiscrimminate bombing, so calling our view skewed because we don't understand the technicalities that make it difficult to kill people properly is really disappointing....isn't it obvious that the resistance you're meeting here is from people against the war in general?

You didn't just challenge us to find examples of the US knowingly killing civilians, did you?

Commy · October 2008

OffHeGoes29 wrote:

Not even one child's life should be taken lightly, but you have to understand something. The nature of what we got ourselves into is not an easy thing to accomplish. This isn't something that can be wrapped up in a couple of months, this isn't something that will guarantee the safety of noncombatants...they are very much apart of this war due to the nature of it. Not by our choosing, the United States did not get into a conflict to kill civilians...that’s not why I joined and that’s not why everyone else joined. You have to trust me on this that the US military goes out of its way to avoid civilian deaths. They do this on purpose, they will gladly expose their own women and children to this danger just to divide us at home. Once again, they don't value life.

I know for a fact that no one in the US military would knowingly call in an air strike on civilians. People go to jail for that sort of thing, there are a set of rules called Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). The military takes this VERY seriously, and follows them closer than any other army in the world.

The military knows the key to victory in Iraq and Afghanistan are its civilian population, and they are not going to throw that away.

You have a very skewed picture of how this works. I don't blame you because you have no knowledge of it.

And to answer your question, I wouldn't support any army that KNOWINGLY killed civilians on purpose. I would raise the question as to why some one here in the states would expose women and children to combat just to sacrifice them for public support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOAC

I got to get to bed, you can call me names later

Have a good night

good points. I have to respond though, can't let it slide.

During Vietnam the CIA targeted the VC's "will" as a legitimate miltary target. That meant directly bombing and killing women and children in an effort to affect the moral of the men fighting the war. And the Pheonix program? holy shit. Terrorism doesn't begin to describe the torture these people were subjected too. The "will" of the combatants was the target.

This is the most advanced military machine in the history of warfare, the United States military. They know how to win wars. Part of that is affecting the moral of enemy combatants. Kill their wife and children, they may not be so willing to fight-what do they have left to fight for really? They did it during the second invasion of Iraq, they bombed Saddam's family's bunkers, killing his family, little kids even. That's modern warfare. They take away the will to fight, as a tactic.
And actually that is the reason vietnam was lost, becasue the will to fight among the indigenous population could not be swayed. In a military sense, and as far as stated goals went, it was a success, because the landscape was so completely wasted communism wasn't allowed to prosper, even if it was given a toehold. They simply had nothing to work with after the US military machine laid waste to their country.

And I believe something similar is happening in Afghanistan, there have been too many "accidents" and "collateral damage" for them to be coincidences. These people are being terrorized, and we are being told we are fighting terrorism. Its straight George Orwell shit, straight from 1984.

you don't accidentally kill 60 little kids, and if you do you sure as hell better have a better reason than 'these people don't value life like we do'. That's bullshit. And so are these bullshit wars. The best way to fight terrorism is to stop participating in it.

g under p · October 2008

Commy wrote:

good points. I have to respond though, can't let it slide.

During Vietnam the CIA targeted the VC's "will" as a legitimate miltary target. That meant directly bombing and killing women and children in an effort to affect the moral of the men fighting the war. And the Pheonix program? holy shit. Terrorism doesn't begin to describe the torture these people were subjected too. The "will" of the combatants was the target.

This is the most advanced military machine in the history of warfare, the United States military. They know how to win wars. Part of that is affecting the moral of enemy combatants. Kill their wife and children, they may not be so willing to fight-what do they have left to fight for really? They did it during the second invasion of Iraq, they bombed Saddam's family's bunkers, killing his family, little kids even. That's modern warfare. They take away the will to fight, as a tactic.
And actually that is the reason vietnam was lost, becasue the will to fight among the indigenous population could not be swayed. In a military sense, and as far as stated goals went, it was a success, because the landscape was so completely wasted communism wasn't allowed to prosper, even if it was given a toehold. They simply had nothing to work with after the US military machine laid waste to their country.

And I believe something similar is happening in Afghanistan, there have been too many "accidents" and "collateral damage" for them to be coincidences. These people are being terrorized, and we are being told we are fighting terrorism. Its straight George Orwell shit, straight from 1984.

you don't accidentally kill 60 little kids, and if you do you sure as hell better have a better reason than 'these people don't value life like we do'. That's bullshit. And so are these bullshit wars. The best way to fight terrorism is to stop participating in it.

Being awakened in the middle of the night by men in full military and a m16 pointed at you and your figurehead is taken for no apparent reason is terriorism at it's best. Staying out of these wars is the best way to avoid innocent civilians from getting killed and stop this madness that WE are the ones that is GOOD in the world according to George W Bush.

Peace

Peace

Drowned Out · October 2008

Commy wrote:

This is the most advanced military machine in the history of warfare, the United States military. They know how to win wars. Part of that is affecting the moral of enemy combatants. Kill their wife and children, they may not be so willing to fight-what do they have left to fight for really? They did it during the second invasion of Iraq, they bombed Saddam's family's bunkers, killing his family, little kids even. That's modern warfare. They take away the will to fight, as a tactic.

I agree with most of what you're saying, but not this paragraph.
I don't think many of these wars were ever meant to be won, just prolonged.

Also, if an invading country killed my kids, even as opposed to war as I am, I would be much more likely to take up arms than if I was only trying to protect my family. This is exactly how these conflicts are self-perpetuating, esp in a 'war on terror', as the thread title suggests....

Commy · October 2008

Drowned Out wrote:

I agree with most of what you're saying, but not this paragraph.
I don't think many of these wars were ever meant to be won, just prolonged.

Also, if an invading country killed my kids, even as opposed to war as I am, I would be much more likely to take up arms than if I was only trying to protect my family. This is exactly how these conflicts are self-perpetuating, esp in a 'war on terror', as the thread title suggests....

I don't know... I do know the CIA targeted the will of VC combatants during vietnam, and they did some very terrible things to them and their families, and that some of those tactics were incorporated into the US military machine, to be used current day.

But I tend to agree with you here...if they killed my family I would do everything in my power to make them pay. Thing is....Fuck. They would rape wives in front of soldiers, burn their husbands alive. They would drop pregnant women out of helicopters into villages where the men who were fighting lived. They would torture the familes, terrible torture, imagine your worst and they did it. they would have cvhildren kill their parents. they would do the worst thing imaginable. They did repeatedly. Will was the target. And I don't know man, but if I was forced to see my parents tortured in front of me I might think twice about resisting.

Its terrible. And I can't believe these things happened and I can't believe I have to repeat them. And I can't believe I am part of a nation that participates in things like this. It sickens me every single day.

How not to end terrorism-Kill civilians...

Welcome!

Comments

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories