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.

 

'Up to 80 civilians dead' after US air strikes in Afghanistan

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   

'Up to 80 civilians dead' after US air strikes in Afghanistan


observer.guardian.co.uk

Air strikes in the British-controlled Helmand province of Afghanistan may have killed civilians, coalition troops said yesterday as local people claimed that between 50 and 80 people, many of them women and children, had died.
In the latest of a series of attacks causing significant civilian casualties in recent weeks, more than 200 were killed by coalition troops in Afghanistan in June, far more than are believed to have been killed by Taliban militants.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.forbes.com
www.usatoday.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iraqi prime minister criticizes U.S. raid that leaves 26 dead in Baghdad's Sadr City
Israeli aircraft launch deadly strike in Gaza
Afghan President Karzai says too many civilian deaths by multi-national forces
7 Afghan children killed in Air Strike




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   
At what point do we change strategies?

And yes, I know "this is all a part of war"

But,
Coalition Forces killed more civilians
in June than the Taliban...

Good God, what are we doing?

observer.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate


At what point do we change strategies?

And yes, I know "this is all a part of war"

But,
Coalition Forces killed more civilians
in June than the Taliban...

Good God, what are we doing?

observer.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


Maybe we're trying to scare them into submission?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
How is that possible!? Did they bomb them? Whats happening in this world? what are we becoming?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
How is that possible!? Did they bomb them? Whats happening in this world? what are we becoming?


Of course, the claim after any incident like this is "whoops! our bad!", but actions speak louder than words and the Coalition's recent activities seem to indicate that they do not lose much sleep over civilian casualties.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
How's it possible..?
Well who's in charge..

Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, raised the issue of civilian casualties on a four-hour visit to Afghanistan on Friday on which he met the senior Nato commander there, the American General Dan McNeill.

Senior British soldiers have previously expressed concerns that McNeill, who took command of the 32,000 Nato troops in Afghanistan only recently, was 'a fan' of the massive use of air power to defeat insurgents and that his favoured tactics could be counter-productive.

same news source

Ahh.. someone who obviously
doesn't lose any sleep over this.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
How is that possible!? Did they bomb them? Whats happening in this world? what are we becoming?


Of course, the claim after any incident like this is "whoops! our bad!", but actions speak louder than words and the Coalition's recent activities seem to indicate that they do not lose much sleep over civilian casualties.


I dont know why, but things like this go ignored and forgotten, sometimes 50+ civilians die in a bomb in iraq, and people dont want to see it. But when there are failed attepts with no deaths, in the UK. Its the biggest news around.
Its all rather odd, are we UK people more important. Confusing.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by uberarcanist

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
How is that possible!? Did they bomb them? Whats happening in this world? what are we becoming?


Of course, the claim after any incident like this is "whoops! our bad!", but actions speak louder than words and the Coalition's recent activities seem to indicate that they do not lose much sleep over civilian casualties.


I dont know why, but things like this go ignored and forgotten, sometimes 50+ civilians die in a bomb in iraq, and people dont want to see it. But when there are failed attepts with no deaths, in the UK. Its the biggest news around.
Its all rather odd, are we UK people more important. Confusing.


Payback's a bitch, a'int it?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
How's it possible..?
Well who's in charge..

Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, raised the issue of civilian casualties on a four-hour visit to Afghanistan on Friday on which he met the senior Nato commander there, the American General Dan McNeill.

Senior British soldiers have previously expressed concerns that McNeill, who took command of the 32,000 Nato troops in Afghanistan only recently, was 'a fan' of the massive use of air power to defeat insurgents and that his favoured tactics could be counter-productive.

same news source

Ahh.. someone who obviously
doesn't lose any sleep over this.


nato is becoming a bunch of cowardly babykillers and evil fascists that it



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by vK_man
nato is becoming a bunch of cowardly babykillers and evil fascists that it


Hmmm, this basically what you said in the Isreal thread. So get up on the wrong side of bed or what? Would care to elaborate beyond a one sentance sound bite?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
That oughtta teach a few of those pesky civilians to leave our C.I.A.'s poppy fields alone.



Originally posted by aecreate
Good God, what are we doing?


We're making heroin to fund our "black-ops", and establishing permanent bases to be used in our conquest of the ME.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Not that I condone it, but the civilian death toll is probably closer to 25. Up to 30 Taliban may have been killed.

www.iht.com...

I also believe that the Taliban deliberately hide among civilians, something that an honourable army would not do.


Various groups here in Kabul keep a running tally of casualties; there is wide variation in numbers. According to Alexander, during the past two years, the number of wartime dead has risen fourfold. So far this year, the United Nations has counted about 2,800 casualties, which is 20 to 30 percent above the pace of 2006. Roughly one-quarter of the deaths are civilians, with the vast majority killed by the Taliban, he said.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Afghan officials now claim:

A local investigation into airstrikes that slammed into Afghan homes where Taliban fighters sought shelter found that 62 insurgents and 45 civilians were killed...

source: ABCnews

I won't argue that the Taliban hide behind civilians,
but that would give me more incentive to change
strategy, especially avoid bombing an entire village...


We're making heroin to fund our "black-ops", and establishing permanent bases to be used in our conquest of the ME.


I won't argue with that either.


1997: Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski publishes a book in which he portrays the Eurasian landmass as the key to world power, and Central Asia with its vast oil reserves as the key to domination of Eurasia. He states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any possible adversary from controlling that region. He notes that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, his ambitious strategy could not be implemented "except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." [The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives]

source (bold emphasis mine)

someone say conquest?


September 2000: A neo-conservative think-tank, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), writes a blueprint for the creation of a global "Pax Americana." Titled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, the document was written for the Bush team even before the 2000 Presidential election. It was commissioned by future Vice President Cheney, future Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, future Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Florida Governor and President Bush's brother Jeb Bush, and future Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby. The report calls itself a blueprint for maintaining global US preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests. The plan shows Bush intended to take military control of the Persian Gulf whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power, and should retain control of the region even if there is no threat. The report calls for the subversion of any growth in political power of even close allies. ... The report advocates the transformation of the US military. But, the authors acknowledge: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbour".[BBC, 2/14/07, Sunday Herald, 9/7/02, click here to download report]
source (bold emphasis mine)

Yea I know, old news, and the rest is history I suppose.


Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by vK_man
nato is becoming a bunch of cowardly babykillers and evil fascists that it


Hmmm, this basically what you said in the Isreal thread. So get up on the wrong side of bed or what? Would care to elaborate beyond a one sentance sound bite?


I think he was commenting on how NATO has
American General Dan McNeill in charge, despite
Senior British soldiers concerns that his massive use
of air power would be counter-productive.

Which it sure seems like:

"Officials in several European countries have quietly expressed concern about placing an American general in charge of the NATO force. Richards [British General who was replaced by Mcneill] tried to create a less harsh, more economic-development-oriented identity for NATO in Afghanistan, as compared to the ‘‘kicking-down-doors’’ image that US forces have. Many local analysts expect NATO forces to embrace a more aggressive stance under McNeill, who is believed to oppose the type of local peace arrangements that Richards promoted. The danger at this point is that an overly aggressive NATO force in Afghanistan could alienate Afghans, and thus cause the Taliban’s support base to grow."
wiki: Dan K. McNeill (brackets and bold mine)

It would appear to me, we're just
giving the locals more reason to hate us.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by uberarcanist

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
How is that possible!? Did they bomb them? Whats happening in this world? what are we becoming?


Of course, the claim after any incident like this is "whoops! our bad!", but actions speak louder than words and the Coalition's recent activities seem to indicate that they do not lose much sleep over civilian casualties.


I dont know why, but things like this go ignored and forgotten, sometimes 50+ civilians die in a bomb in iraq, and people dont want to see it. But when there are failed attepts with no deaths, in the UK. Its the biggest news around.
Its all rather odd, are we UK people more important. Confusing.



Iraq is a warzone... the UK is NOT!
its big news because it is a terror plot in a non warzone nation, this terror plot was aimed specifically at killing as many innocent bystanders as possibe. Now a JDAM guided bomb landing on the local elementary school can be and more then likely is an accident. What theres terrorist are doing is unforced human errors..meaning that they are 'trying' to KILL AS MANY INNOCENT PPL AS POSSIBLE.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
"It would appear to me, we're just
giving the locals more reason to hate us."

or fear us... harbor known taliban fighters and be ready to suffer the consequences... Not a bad military tactic against and enemy who follows no rules. the only downside is the loss of life of innocent bystanders. But this can be viewed as a way to "flush" the enemy out from hiding... villagers wont want armed talibani fighters in there village if they know it could result in massive casueltys... to risky..

[edit on 073131p://0007pm by semperfoo]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   

or fear us... harbor known taliban fighters and be ready to suffer the consequences... Not a bad military tactic against and enemy who follows no rules.


But how does one tell who's
WILLINGLY harboring them
and those who didn't have a choice?

And I disagree, that is a BAD military tactic.
Ever read "The Art of War"?


the only downside is the loss of life of innocent bystanders


And some wonder why they hate us.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Some of you people on here make me so unbelievably mad. Do you honestly think the pilots who dropped those bombs don't feel extremely bad when they realize they killed more civiliians than terrorists??? Do You honestly think that everyone in the military are heartless bastards who dont care about human life whatsoever?? You'd have to be a complete MORON to think that. Yet some of you think it is appropriate to label them "facist babykillers." People in the military have hearts and souls too and I guarantee you that when things like these happen they are just as sad as any of us and probably even more. The people in the military are NOT the ones to blame in this incident. It is the generals and the people in charge for not taking the time to formulate new strategies that are the ones to blame so please refrain from using your "F THE TROOPS" rhetoric because I, and many others, find it EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE


It's obvious to anyone we need to change strategies in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't keep letting these things happen. But you must understand these terrorists are cowards and DO hide amongst the people, hence all the civillian lives taken. We're fighting an unconventional war and its going to take drastic strategic changes before we win it. I honesty believe that the military generals have no clue how to fight this war. I only hope that it wont be too late before they do find a way.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


If true that is more like it and makes a lot of sense. I kind of felt after reading the first post the taliban might have had civilians shouting they are killing civians in huge numbers when the real truth is they were taliban posing as civilians or perhaps taliban with civilian hostages


This article reminds me of one roughly a year ago written by Sorcha Fall (sp?) where she claimed Americans had killed thousands of civilians which later turned out to be all taliban. In that case her lies were found out using her own sources, God I loved exposing that



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join