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.

 

NATO changed rules of engagement in Afghanistan

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Nato tightens rules of engagement to limit further civilian casualties in Aghanistan


www.guardian.co.uk

The rules of engagement for Nato troops will focus on house searches, saying they should be led by Afghan forces, and that permission from homeowners should first be sought. A limit on the size and weight of bombs used in air strikes was imposed last year, but there is continuing anxiety in Nato about the counterproductive impact of civilian casualties on the majority Pashtun population.
(visit the link for the full news article)



By the way, the Mods changed the title of my thread before to reflect an anti-war perspective. I feel I reserve the right to designate my thread with a name of my own choosing and consider the Mod's action a form of censorship. Deny ignorance? I guess only if they agree with your politics.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by ppskylight]

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by ppskylight]




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
This is bullpoo, how the hell are we supposed to win a war when most of the NATO allies aren't even pulling their weight, and on top of that, now the bureaucrats are going to pull a stunt like this and get more of our dudes killed by restricting their operations.

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

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppskylight


This is bull#, how the hell are we supposed to win a war when most of the NATO allies aren't even pulling their weight, and on top of that, now the bureaucrats are going to pull a stunt like this and get more of our dudes killed by restricting their operations.

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


Who is the war against my friend? Afghanistan?

nope, you see what the problem is is not the size of the bombs, but that the entire invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was done without the thought of "what happens after we win".

Which meant basically invade and squash the army in Iraq, and make a few thousands ill equiped rebels move out of some caves in Afghanistan.

But what then? you cant fight a war against terrorism the whole phrase and concept is a -non opposi priorti- basically it does not make sense, it cant work, the head of the snake is trying to fight itself.

War is just organised terror, trust me the young children and families who were just blown up by us planes, on the way to a wedding this weekend, they suffered "terrorism" their daily lives were interrupted with violence against civilians, against normal civil actions and events. their communities are now very "terrorized" every time they hear the jets overhead. They are in fear. they are terrorized.

Semantics we are American organized and doing it to civilians there its war.

They are (insert group here) doing it here its organized against civilians so now its terrorism!

There is no "war on terror" for your "guys" to fight, just pipelines of oil and opium to protect my friend, and sanitize the area so more of the black stuff can be "liberated" soon.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   





First of all, you aren't my friend.

Secondly, there is a war on terror, and it is very real for those that have fought in its name. It might not be real for you sitting at home in front of your computer, but I assure you it is very real.

Thirdly; The war is against the Taliban, and radical Muslim extremists operating under or affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Our soldiers have met them face to face, they are a very real and very dangerous enemy that are extremely motivated.

Fourthly; The name given to a war is not what wins the war. The war on terror focuses in on very specific terrorist groups, and the networks that fund them.

Fifth; There is a very distinct and definite difference between the current war we are engaged in and acts of terrorism carried out by radical minority groups. We target armed, enemy combatants. The enemy targets innocent civilians, in Afghanistan the villagers are afraid of the Taliban. They will tell UN investigators whatever the Taliban tell them to say because when the UN comes and they ask what happened, there is always a Taliban fighter standing around watching and listening to see if anybody is helping NATO. NATO runs the country in the day, but the Taliban run it at night. The Taliban are terrorists, most of the suicide bombings in Afghanistan end up killing innocent civilians instead of NATO soldiers.


And finally, you are entitled to your opinions about the reasons for the conflicts we are fighting, but it doesn't make you right. The men and women fighting in Afghanistan believe in their cause, as does a large percentage of the American population.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
You'd think we'd know what to do in Afghanistan considering we duped the Soviet Union into entering a long, drawn-out war that drained their military forces...

But I guess not.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ppskylight
 

Well spoken facts. All too often armchair politicians and/or green idealists have never stepped outside their own nation. I would wage that 99% of them have never served their country. These people live in a bubble-world. They all eat out of the same dog bowl, which is doled out by the left.

These lefties just never pass history in or out of school. The FACT remains
that "wars determine human history," whether we hate them, or we really hate them.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppskylight
I feel I reserve the right to designate my thread with a name of my own choosing and consider the Mod's action a form of censorship.


The rules established by the site owners clearly state that you must use the title of the article.


Deny ignorance?


That's what this site is committed to.


I guess only if they agree with your politics.


Isn't that why you originally changed the title to your liking?


Back to the subject, this is a good thing to do. You can argue all you want that US troops should be able to enter any home at will, but the fact is that it's Afghan homes. Would you let Afghan soldiers enter your home any time they feel like it, if an American committed terrorism on their soil (if the situation were reversed)?

By allowing the Afghan forces to enter the homes, the forces against terrorism have gained an advantage because US troops are not trained to speak Dari or Pashto fluently, Afghan troops and police forces have legitimacy to enter the homes, and Afghan troops and police officers have a higher understanding of the cultural and religious customs.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by DJMessiah]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Someone remind me again why it's so important that there's a heavy NATO and allied presence over in Afhghanistan?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join