It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Taliban using human shields in Afghanistan

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
This weeks major battle that left 60+ Taliban dead and many civilians has raised an investigation by President Hamid Karzai. Apparently the civilian deaths in US air raids on the Taliban were the result of the Talibans deliberate use of civilians in the hopes of avoiding a coalition attack.

At the end of the day, no matter what side you are on politically, who you like and who you don’t like, this the difference between the good guys and the bad guys: The west causes civilian deaths via unfortunate accidents and the terrorists cause civilian deaths as a purposeful tactic.

Animals

CNN.com



CNN) -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai has ordered an investigation into reports of the deaths of 16 civilians killed while apparently being used as human shields during fighting around Kandahar.

The reports indicated that while Taliban fighters were on the run from coalition forces in the Panjwayi district, they took refuge in civilian homes, which were then bombed by coalition forces, according to a news release from the Afghanistan government.

"While expressing concern at the Coalition Forces' decision to bomb civilian areas, the president strongly condemned the terrorists' act of cowardice to hide behind civilians and use them as human shields," the release said on Tuesday


My new sig says it all...




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Interesting how you can find opposing reports:


Khaleej Times Online

“Coalition forces conducted a significant operation early this morning in the Kandahar region near the village of Azizi that resulted in the unconfirmed deaths of POSSIBLY up to 80 Taleban members,” a coalition statement said.

There were 20 confirmed deaths among “active members of the Taleban network” and 60 unconfirmed fatalities in the operation, the third in the area in a week.

An elderly man, Attah Mohammad, told an AFP correspondent at the hospital that 24 members of his family, including some children, were killed in the bombing.

A doctor said security forces had not allowed ambulances into the sealed-off area to fetch the wounded.

Well, a single man has claimed that 24 members of his family were killed - all of them Taliban?

And what is this thingy about 60 UNCONFIRMED FATALITIES?

Remember this?


U.S. says kills 70 militants in west Iraq clashes

US warplanes and helicopters bombed two villages near the Iraq city of Ramadi, killing an estimated 70 militants, the military said today. But witnesses said at least 39 were civilians.

Is this event kind of the same?

Today it's 80 SUSPECTED Taliban - I wonder how many of these SUSPECTED Taliban were Civilians, and I wonder how many were Women and Children...



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Interesting how you can find opposing reports:



"Intersting"?

Hardly,

You only look at anti USA news sources Souljah, how is it "interesting" that even one of your sources would portray this story in any other way than you report it? Its your reports that are slanted and "opposing", not CNN quoting the very president of the nation.

I think its more appropriate to say your sources are very "predictable" in thier stories, and that you are ready to post them as truth is just as predictable.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
You only look at anti USA news sources Souljah, how is it "interesting" that even one of your sources would portray this story in any other way than you report it? Its your reports that are slanted and "opposing", not CNN quoting the very president of the nation.

Whats so Anti-American about Khaleej Times?

Anyway, you mean the Puppety President, that US put to Power?

A Fisking of the Afghan Pipeline
The Enron-isation of Afghanistan?
Is Enron Behind The War In Afghanistan?
Provisional leader Karzai links to US Oil
From ENRON Entanglements to UNOCAL Bringing the Taliban to Texas and Controlling Afghanistan

Democracy, Liberty and Justice for all...?

Or Just BUSINESS as usual?



I think its more appropriate to say your sources are very "predictable" in thier stories, and that you are ready to post them as truth is just as predictable.

And how do you know that YOUR Sources are post Holy Truth?

Were you there?



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
souljah: Even the afghanistan prime minister said this happened because the Taliban were using homes of civilians. What do you expect us to do, just stoping attacking them everytime they use civilians as shields? Perhaps the civilians should stop harboring them!



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dronetek
souljah: Even the afghanistan prime minister said this happened because the Taliban were using homes of civilians. What do you expect us to do, just stoping attacking them everytime they use civilians as shields? Perhaps the civilians should stop harboring them!

I am somehow Skeptic over this SUSPECTED 80 Taliban casualties - we have all seen before how this Game goes; if they are Dead, they are Terrorists. So far only 20 confirmed casualties have been classified as Taliban fihters - what about the rest 60? Anyway it's a nice trick the Corporate Media are playing for the US govement - bomb the crap out of some Afganistan villages, in their "Hunt for the Taliban", and if Civilans die, Blame it on the Taliban ofcourse, for hiding behind Civilans.

It's a WIN-WIN situation!

And NONE of us were there to see what really happened - and we never will know anyway.

[edit on 23/5/06 by Souljah]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I think it depends on the situation. If these people are being terrorized by the old regime and forced to supply them with shelter, then all means should be taken to protect them and they should be treated ,as hostages would be treated here in the USA and not attack until the enemy is clear of the innocent. There should be no rush to kill innocent people.

IF the situation is where these people knowingly take them in and offer food and shelter in support of their cause, then they are no longer innocent civilians but are casualties of war for aiding and abetting the enemy. The parents were responsible for bringing this upon their own children.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Human shields, eh?

Looks like the Taliban took a tip from the Israelis...



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Human shields, eh?

Looks like the Taliban took a tip from the Israelis...


LOL< you are kidding right?

Any comments on the Palestinians targeting Israeli civilians as a RULE? Of couse not, doesnt fit your agenda.

And I am certain making comments as you do, you have never seen pictures like this one showing the palestinians shooting at Israeli troops from within a crown of kids?



Of course you havent seen it Truth, otherise how could you have the opinions you do? Or it could be just plain racism, but I will give you the benifit of the doubt...



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
And I am certain making comments as you do, you have never seen pictures like this one showing the palestinians shooting at Israeli troops from within a crown of kids?


Are you for certain they are actually firing on Israelis and not just posing for one of those martyr or nationalist pictures?Maybe training? Hard to tell from a Still shot without seeing tanks or something on the other side. The Palestinian kids look to those guys as heroes as do the Israeli kids to the IDF so I imagine they get swarmed by kids on both sides when they are around.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Wtf are you talking about?

Your thread talks about human shields. The Israelis have used human shields for a while. Only recently has a judge ruled that they have to stop using human shields, but they still do it anyway.

I was shooting down your assumption that Western govts don't do things like use human shields. I could care less if you don't like it.


And where did you get racism? Wow...this coming from the guy who hates Muslims.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   


The reports indicated that while Taliban fighters were on the run from coalition forces in the Panjwayi district, they took refuge in civilian homes, which were then bombed by coalition forces, according to a news release from the Afghanistan government.

"While expressing concern at the Coalition Forces' decision to bomb civilian areas, the president strongly condemned the terrorists' act of cowardice to hide behind civilians and use them as human shields," the release said on Tuesday


It states that they took refuge while on the run. I guess you expected them to run into their military barracks? Oh wait, they don't have any.

As well the article states, "While expressing concern at the Coalition Forces' decision to bomb civilian areas".

Of course the Taliban are vile, but that doesn't give Coaliton forces a free pass to kill whatever moves. The Coaliton forces need to accept some responsibility in that it was their bombs that killed these people.

[edit on 23-5-2006 by Jamuhn]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
The spin you have tried to apply on this thing is lame, Skppytjc. The issue here is clearly that the occupying forces called in airstrikes on a Residential area with there was women and children present. For all you know, the Taliban could have forced those families to let them use their homes, would special forces just call in an Airstrike in a hostage situation in our home countries? I thought we were supposed to be liberating these people, Skippo? How liberated are they going to feel if we have to blow them to smitherines just to get to the guys we're after? You people are insane. Mind you though, If your Avatar is anything to go by, Skippytjc, you're probably just evil.

What goes around, comes around, my friend, what goes around comes around...



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Communication_Monster
For all you know, the Taliban could have forced those families to let them use their homes, would special forces just call in an Airstrike in a hostage situation in our home countries?



If this happened here or in lets say the UK the situation would be completely different. The insurgents/terrorists would not have 1, two three or a thousand others to back them up so we could surround the building until they could capture or disable them. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here the two situations are not the same.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
If this happened here or in lets say the UK the situation would be completely different. The insurgents/terrorists would not have 1, two three or a thousand others to back them up so we could surround the building until they could capture or disable them. You are trying to compare apples to oranges here the two situations are not the same.


Alright, Shots, alright, maybe that was a bad analogy. You can't just fall back on that to try and justify this, though. Civilian areas have been deliberatly hit with Airstrikes, that's just not acceptable. Like Jamuhn has already pointed out, the insurgents were on the run, and hid in that place. I very much doubt any of that was the fault of the families who were there, yet they were blown to pieces from afar with Airstrikes. Some kid just lost his entire family, and for what? So the Coalition "could continue with their operation"?

You had ought to be ashamed of yourselves, supporting this kind of action.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Communication_Monster
You had ought to be ashamed of yourselves, supporting this kind of action.


Ought to be ashamed of ourselves? The soldiers and pilots did what they did, which is to kill the enemy wherever they find. It ain't our fault the enemy decided to go into peoples home in hopes of shielding themselves. This is a lesson taught to the Taliban to not to take refuge in peoples houses or otherwise soldiers or planes will attack them they should run back into Pakistan or into the mountains.




Wounded villagers at a hospital described how aircraft bombed mud-brick homes where Taliban rebels were hiding, having fled there from a religious school after the airstrikes started. An infant was among the wounded.

With the attack late Sunday and early Monday, as many as 286 militants, Afghan forces, coalition soldiers and civilians have been killed in the storm of violence that erupted Wednesday in the south, according to coalition and Afghan figures.



At Mirwaise Hospital in the city of Kandahar, a man with bloody clothing said insurgents had been hiding in an Islamic religious school, or madrassa, in the village since the recent fierce fighting.

Aircraft "bombed the madrassa and some of the Taliban ran from there and into people's homes. Then, those homes were bombed," said Haji Ikhlaf, 40. "I saw 35 to 40 dead Taliban and around 50 dead or wounded civilians."

Another villager, Zurmina Bibi, cradled her wounded 8-month-old. She said about 10 people were killed in her home, including three or four children.

"There were dead people everywhere," she said, crying.

Kandahar Gov. Asadullah Khalid said the airstrike killed 16 civilians and wounded 16. "These sort of accidents happen during fighting, especially when the Taliban are hiding in homes," he said. "I urge people not to give shelter to the Taliban."



Lin k

Need fix on link.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Laws of War

Laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils of war by:
  • Protecting both combatants and noncombatants from unnecessary suffering;
  • Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians; and
  • Facilitating the restoration of peace.


Aerial area bombardment and international law

  • Article 25: The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
  • Article 26: The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
  • Article 27: In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Ought to be ashamed of ourselves? The soldiers and pilots did what they did, which is to kill the enemy wherever they find. It ain't our fault the enemy decided to go into peoples home in hopes of shielding themselves.


Lets just hope that more of our enemies don't begin to take your pearl of wisdom here and apply it more to the citizens of the USA. We have already lost 3000+ people. This philosophy you are mentioning has not been working too well for the Israelis. It just drives more people to hatred and revenge.


Pie



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by Communication_Monster
You had ought to be ashamed of yourselves, supporting this kind of action.


Ought to be ashamed of ourselves? The soldiers and pilots did what they did, which is to kill the enemy wherever they find. It ain't our fault the enemy decided to go into peoples home in hopes of shielding themselves. This is a lesson taught to the Taliban to not to take refuge in peoples houses or otherwise soldiers or planes will attack them they should run back into Pakistan or into the mountains.


So what you are saying is it's alright to bomb the # out of these civilians just because some fleeing Taliban took refuge in and around their homes? Killing little girls, mothers, brothers, and fathers... People who are probably absolutely nothing to do with this pigging War should be bombed to death by the Coalition just to 'teach the Taliban a lesson'? I'm absolutely speechless at how sinister that statement is, the insane thing is, you were actually being serious! I guess next you will be saying it's ok for suicide bombers to kill us just to get at some of our troops. What the hell, they're only killing the enemy wherever they find them, right? No harm done. Of course, any Civilians who died would be blood on the hands of the Coalition, who were obviously using them as 'Human shields'. Indeed.

Good bye.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
And where did you get racism? Wow...this coming from the guy who hates Muslims.


There is plenty of wrong doing across all the boards, but this thread is not about the Israelis at all. I understand the point you're trying to make, but it becomes redundant when every thread you take the opportunity to go after the zionists, no matter how you tie it into the topic. I don't think I've ever read a post where Skippy said he "hates" muslims, but I guess it seems like he does, just like it seems like you hate zionists. But your hate, if it exists, is justified by the evil things you believe they do, right? Well, all racists believe those they hate are evil and less human.

On topic, I believe perhaps they could have gone after the Taliban in a more tactical way....maybe some kind of "surgical" special operations strike, sure it puts the lives of soldiers at risk, but I think it's worth it to save the lives of innocent children, that's what makes a hero, IMO.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join