Military medics try to keep Afghan boy alive

Originally posted by jackflap
I believe we are seeing a form of propaganda here. There are new rules of engagement now, I saw the news brief. Our forces cannot fire on people who are not armed. The Taliban know this and they all walk away from fire fights unscathed. All they have to do is appear to be unarmed.

So you have to ask yourself why they would need human shields? Baffling.

Because not all Taliban are walking around without weapons. They engage US/NATO forces from a village knowing that they won't be fired on. That's called, "using civilians as a human shield."

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!! I swear the prowar pro US military industrial complex crowd are the biggest hypocrites around. So let me get this straight..........27 Afghan civillians were just killed......women and children...................but the US military is trying to save ONE boy who was shot????????????

Ever heard the phrase one step forward and two steps back? Idiots.

So I guess that they should have just let that kid die, right? Get a grip.

And I don't see too many stories in any press showing Taliban forces trying to save anyone besides their own miserable asses.

reply to post by jerico65

Because not all Taliban are walking around without weapons. They engage US/NATO forces from a village knowing that they won't be fired on. That's called, "using civilians as a human shield."

Good point. Now heres one for you. Why is it that we even had to go back to Afghanistan and oust those Taliban who are using civilians for human shields and how is it that they became so prominent in the first place?

Do you know? Do you know why we are over there fighting the terrorists that the U.S. has created? The article in the opening post is a propaganda piece in and of itself to show how humane our forces are.

Which I agree with, they are trying their very damnedest to make a very bad situation better. I find it ironic that the very public that we thought nothing about and dismissed after we left them with the monster we created, are now being used as propaganda against that very monster.

Should I have used some cute emoticons to show my surprise?

Originally posted by jackflap
Why is it that we even had to go back to Afghanistan and oust those Taliban who are using civilians for human shields and how is it that they became so prominent in the first place?

You do realize that the Taliban really weren't a friend to the Afghan people? I'm certain that there are a bunch of people that were slaughtered at Mazar-e-Sharif that would probably agree with me if there were still alive.

Does the US/NATO being there give them a right to use civilians as a human shield?

Originally posted by jackflap
The article in the opening post is a propaganda piece in and of itself to show how humane our forces are.

Are you thinking that this kid is the only one that has ever been helped by US Forces in A-stan? If so, you're sadly mistakened.

Haven't seen any stories about the Taliban helping anyone, tho.

Originally posted by jackflap
Which I agree with, they are trying their very damnedest to make a very bad situation better. I find it ironic that the very public that we thought nothing about and dismissed after we left them with the monster we created, are now being used as propaganda against that very monster.

Well, the US didn't creat the Taliban, and there isn't direct evidence that CIA supported them or AQ when they were supporting the Mujahideen.

Originally posted by jackflap
Should I have used some cute emoticons to show my surprise?

I dunno; you got one?

reply to post by jerico65

But not only is Washington attacking one of the poorest countries in the world, past U.S. government actions are in no small part responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan. The Bush administration claims to be targeting Osama bin Laden, who it says masterminded the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (even though it has offered no concrete evidence to back up this accusation), and Afghanistan's Taliban government, which is sheltering him. But as the Economist magazine noted soon after September 11, " [U.S.] policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him." An examination of this history will reveal the extent to which U.S. foreign policy is based on hypocrisy, realpolitik, and the short-term pursuit of narrow interests.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

Now is the above source and article the holy grail of what it is I am trying to point out? No. I could look for more sources and I'm sure I could even find sources to disprove it.

I realize full well that the Taliban were never friends of the Afghan people and that they were brutal and wanted Sharia law to preside over the whole of the world if they could.

Why? Why would they think this type of behavior and regimented control was necessary? I have a few theories of my own that I will not share but I am trying to make you see that there has to be a reason for it.

I haven't heard of any Taliban forces helping anyone either and I'm sure we will not hear about it if it does occur. Our forces are the best in the world and deserve our support. I just don't like it when we are fed propaganda to further the agenda of those who want war.

Originally posted by jackflap
I just don't like it when we are fed propaganda to further the agenda of those who want war.

But the story about the kid doesn't end with, "Support the War! Buy more bonds!!" It's showing what happens on an almost daily basis at the FOBs and Bagram. People showing up with busted up family members looking for help (I'm certain that someone will quote me and say, "they were probably shot by US troops!" Whatever. Piss off.). Medics don't care, they treat everyone.

I'm glad to see these stories mainly because I'm getting a case of the ass of BS stories that always make headlines on the MSM and here on ATS. What was the last one, the story about US Forces shooting handcuffed kids? The one that was just some BS comment on someone's freakin' blog?

reply to post by jackflap



And about Gen McChrystal. The man is crazy smart. The idea about curbing night raids is a good one. There are some people that understand COIN, and some that don't. He does.

For a good example, watch that movie that came out in the late 80's called, "Colors" with Robert Duvall and Sean Penn.

Robert Duvall is COIN.

Sean Penn is trying to kill his way to victory.

McCrystal is Robert Duvall.

Originally posted by rainfall
jerico........

If the criminal U.S. military wasn't illegally occupying that country, that boy would not have been shot in the first place...

Really because that land was peaceful loving and had no violence whats-so-ever before we rolled in? I know we have contributed to the problem, but to make an ignorant comment of "that boy would not have been shot in the first place..."

You are the epitome of those that moan and complain about the situation and lament that only destruction is occurring, but when one shows that those over there serving will go out of the way to help and serve not only their brothers but also those within the country you make some asinine statement that 'if only...'

reply to post by jerico65

I'm glad to see these stories mainly because I'm getting a case of the ass of BS stories that always make headlines on the MSM and here on ATS. What was the last one, the story about US Forces shooting handcuffed kids? The one that was just some BS comment on someone's freakin' blog?

I am glad when I hear anything good come out of the turmoil that goes on during war my friend. The thing is, we will always see people blame it on the supposedly evil soldiers or question why they are there in the first place. This used to bother me as well, but I don't let it bother me anymore.

The truth is we need to find answers as to why in the world we are there in the first place. If our intentions were truly noble I don't believe we would find much in the way of resistance. If our foreign policy and our leaders were truly looking to spread the good intentions of the American people we wouldn't need to be shooting anyone.

Why did the U.S. get involved in Afghanistan: For the same reason it got involved in Korea and Vietnam: anti-Communist cold war politics. Later, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. did nothing to seriously oppose the Taliban government once it was established in the 1990s. While diplomatic relations were broken by Clinton, Afghanistan was not put in the list of “rogue states,” since that would have prevented the U.S. corporation, UnoCal from continuing its negotiations with the Taliban government for the construction of a pipeline for oil through Afghanistan to help secure U.S. energy companies control over oil and natural gas from former Soviet Republics. In the cold war and post cold war period these policies produced death and destruction through the world. There is a concept that is used by students of politics and international relations. It is called “blowback.” There is an old Chinese warning: be careful what you wish for; you may get it. What united Ronald Reagan and Osama bin Laden, George H.W. Bush and the King of Saudi Arabia, our various governments and our non European allies, was opposition to Communist, socialist, populist and humanist movements among the people, maintenance of a status quo based on exploitation and oppression. Once the Soviet Union was destroyed, the unity between the major league exploiters, so to speak, and the minor league ones inevitably broke down. Now we come to blowback and there really is a lot of it. With Saudi money, an international group, Al Qaeda, the base, was established in 1988 to continue and spread the holy war in Afghanistan through the Muslim World. But why worry? These people were fighting “our” battles in the past against “our” enemies, revolutionary forces fighting for socialism and national liberation, the forces that the ruling class of our country had spent so many trillions to search and destroy. In the “post-Soviet world” “we,” meaning the capitalists of the advanced countries, could do with them and everyone else what “we wanted.

www.politicalaffairs.net...

You see we are all being led by someone or something that is not interested in even the good intentions of our soldiers who are trying to save the Afghan boy's life. They could care less about that, it is something to throw at the masses for consumption. Do you think they care about how vehemently you support the noble actions of our military?

Edited to add source link.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by jackflap]

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
You are the epitome of those that moan and complain about the situation and lament that only destruction is occurring, but when one shows that those over there serving will go out of the way to help and serve not only their brothers but also those within the country you make some asinine statement that 'if only...'

Exactly....

I'm sure many here still think that Kabul is the blown out hulk of rubble it was when the Soviets pulled out.

Kabul City center mall

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7ec027d08e3b.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by SLAYER69


Why that is a nice picture Slayer. You always put the nicest pictures up for everyones enjoyment. I am glad that there is a mall in Kabul. I wonder what it cost and who benefited? A quick search, I'll tell ya.

Gap between rich and poor widens in Afghanistan / Some buy watches for $4,000, others heat homes with dung

The emergence of an opulent elite is one sign that much has changed since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001. Another was the reopening of the Afghan parliament last month, hailed as a step toward stability after a quarter-century of chaos. But for many Afghans, greater democracy and a more open economy has done little except to increase their impatience and anger. Malik Shah, a 26-year-old laborer, had been stamping his feet on the freezing sidewalk near the shopping center since dawn, hoping for a day's work that might earn him $4. So far, nothing had come up. Another 40 men waited beside him, wrapped in wool shawls against the penetrating chill. None had been inside Kabul City Center, the plaza that boasts three floors of heated shops, a cappuccino bar and Afghanistan's first escalator. "They don't allow people dressed like us," said Shah, pointing to his ragged pants. An angry murmur ran through the crowd. "We just want a chance to work," Shah said. "Isn't that what we were promised?" The shortcomings of the international reconstruction effort -- a project estimated to cost $8 billion since 2002 -- are apparent as another icy winter closes in on Kabul. Thousands of refugees have returned to the capital from Pakistan and Iran, but few have found work. Migrant workers like Shah have flooded in from the countryside, looking for jobs that for the most part don't exist. Open sewers run through the streets. The city is choked by giant traffic jams. The gulf between rich and poor is most acutely apparent in terms of electricity. Most residents have no more than five hours of power every second night, if they are lucky. As temperatures plunge below zero, poor families huddle around wood stoves and make their way to bed by candlelight. In wealthy neighborhoods, diesel generators roar into action. In his gas-heated office, Ismail Khan, a former warlord and now the new government's energy minister, insisted that progress is being made.

articles.sfgate.com...

Well I guess it's not all peaches and cream for everyone but a select few in Afghanistan. Hey, I heard they are getting a brand new communications system in there too. Let's take a look.

GSM/GPRS mobile phone services in the city are provided by Afghan Wireless, Etisalat, Roshan and MTN. In November 2006, the Afghan Ministry of Communications signed a US 64.5 million dollar agreement with a company (ZTE Corporation) on the establishment of a countrywide fibre optical cable network. This will improve telephone, internet, television and radio broadcast services not just in Kabul but throughout the country.

en.wikipedia.org...

Hey, progress is progress right? This way we can broadcast some good programming to the good Afghan people.

Why Obama’s Surge in Afghanistan?

The reasons behind the surge — Al Qaeda, “rooting out terrorism,” etc. — are unlikely to fool many people, with the exception of the media. This “war on terror” propaganda is based on the same illogical catch-phrases that Bush’s limited intelligence tripped over. Coming from Obama, such stupid reasoning sounds especially bizarre, akin to an evolutionary biologist forced to argue in favor of creationism. Obama is compelled to tell the really big lie because the truth is too damning. If he remotely approached the real motives behind the war, the public would be pushed into total defiance — Obama’s new $660 billion military budget for 2010 would have caused mass demonstrations. In reality, the war in Afghanistan was a convenient way for U.S.corporations — who dominate U.S. politics — to get a firmer hold in the resource-rich Middle East. For example, soon after Afghanistanwas invaded, we were told that Iraq was a “ticking time bomb,” while now Obama assures us that Pakistan is the real threat — and don’t forget Iran! When considering the above military budget, these countries are threats to the U.S in the same way that a flea is a threat to an elephant. Who really benefits from war in the Middle East? So far, U.S. weapons manufacturers have (Boeing, etc.), U.S. oil companies (Exxon, etc.), and the big banks that help move the spoils around (Citigroup, etc.) who also dominate the finances of the conquered country. Corporations that deal with “reconstruction” contracts love war (Halliburton, etc.), while also the multitude of “private contractors” that specialize in everything from cooking (Halliburton again) to mercenary fighting (Blackwater, etc.). The many U.S. corporations that export abroad also benefit from the war, since a dominated country offers them a monopoly market to sell their goods in, or the ability to set up shop where none existed before. It is these collective interests that are driving Obama’s foreign policy; they would rather see the U.S. and Afghani people bled dry than allow a foreign competitor — China, Russia, etc. — to dominateAfghanistan’s resources and markets. The U.S. is certainly not fighting terrorists in Afghanistan — the Al Qaeda bogey men and the “evil genius” Osama Bin Laden are not directing military operations from a cave. The vast majority of people fighting U.S. troops are not “Islamic extremists” (another catchphrase), but average citizens enraged by foreign troops rummaging around in their homes, patting them down at check points, indiscriminately detaining them at torture centers (U.S. Bagram Air base), and killing their family members.

www.globalresearch.ca...

I don't know, I still like that picture.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Wow a shopping mall! That's so cool, now who is going to shop there the Afghani citizens who have an average per capita income of 300.00 dollars a year or the Afghani Officials with large salaries courtesy of the U.S. Taxpayers, or the military and defense department contractors making 300K a year at the expense of the U.S. Taxpayer.

I bet the starving largely unemployed citizens of Afghanistan feel much better knowing that there is a softer side to Sears!

Consider Afghanistan. Over the next few years, billions of dollars of international aid will be spent in the effort to create a stable government that can stop the Taliban and al Qaeda from regaining control. At the same time, however, armed individuals and tribal groups are competing for power and territory. International oil companies are seeking influence to build a pipeline. And some desperately poor Afghanis believe they have no choice but to grow opium poppies that can be quickly and easily sold for cash.

Most international aid goes to centralized agencies, not to ordinary – and literally starving – people. What if, instead, aid was distributed from the bottom up in the form of basic income grants? What if, instead of relying on administrators in Kabul and other major cities, and paying them relatively large salaries, relief agencies distributed small amounts of money directly to poor people throughout the country? What if all adult Afghanis are given a minimal income, assisted to do what is best for themselves and their families, and encouraged to participate in rebuilding their communities? In other words, what if international agencies act like wise, loving, respectful parents, rather than authoritarian taskmasters?

Per capita income in Afghanistan is sometimes reported to be $300 a year, but that average includes Afghanis who are westernized and wealthy, and it ignores the devastation of the recent war. In most of the country, giving people an extra $10 a month would dramatically improve their quality of life. Grants could be withheld from people involved with illegal drugs or other criminal activities. The funds could be guaranteed by the international community for a period of, say, five years — long enough for the national government to develop a revenue base to continue the program and for local governments to assume the administrative responsibilities.

Way To World Peace

The truth is Afghanistan is the 7th poorest nation in the world. They need a lot of things, it's highly doubtful this shopping mall built for the American funded elites of the Karzai government who won reelection amidst wide spread allegations of voter fraud, and the international contractors and military personnel who would be about the only people able to afford to shop there is one of them.

In a world of feel good solutions to appease and absolve the guilty minds of the murderers and the people who fund them it looks great.

Unfortunately to the victims of a 10 year long war that's only seen their standard of life and income drop this shopping mall is about as useless as fleas on a camel!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Now that is some good information Proto. A post that is well deserving of my recognition as something that has informed and educated me. I starred it.

I actually learned something there so that is on topic and giving recognition to a very good post is something that I believe should be done. It gives the reader a chance to reconsider going back to something they may have breezed by before.

The post before, as pointed out by Slayer, was kind of off topic so I edited it. Thanks Slayer.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by jackflap]

Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Now that is some good information Proto. A post that is well deserving of my recognition as something that has informed and educated me. I starred it. Do you wonder why it seems that the posts in this thread which have no real content, other than maybe a flashy picture or a witty one lined non factual based reply get more stars? I don't know it could be that my monitor is broken or something because no one would star a post that has no content or an intelligent reply, would they?

People star for different reasons JackFlap, sometimes its because they just like the poster, sometimes its because they know the poster is like minded, sometimes its because they saw some value in the post and want to single it out, and sometimes it's because a forum gang is at play.

Stars though can actually backfire on someone who seeks them for egos sake when it highlights bad posts for attention.

It's kind of like some of the left/right political divide posters, and the pro-Zionist posters they often end up hurting their cause in what they post. The like minded star it, but it just ends up drawing the attention of the critical minded who see the hypocracies and sometimes arrogance in it.

The truth is a huge part of warfare, some would argue the most critical part of warfare is winning the hearts and minds of the people you are trying to conguer and that's what is taking so long in Afghanistan is that we are doing a terrible jobs at winning hearts and minds.

The longer a war drags on though, then the more critical it becomes to win the hearts and minds of the people back home who get tired of paying for it in dollars and lives.

So the hearts and mind battle is huge, governments and the military are constantly trying to win hearts and minds both places, the nation they are occupying and the folks back home.

Pictures of worthless shopping malls that won't win the hearts and minds of the average Afghani who couldn't even afford to shop there can end up winning the hearts and minds of people here in the States who think shopping malls are important.

That's why someone would post it to a thread like this.

Chances are too that the local people in Afghanistan aren't too impressed with Military Medics trying to keep an Afghani boy alive especially if he might not even have ever needed that assistance if their country hadn't been torn into a war zone.

But once again it can win hearts and minds here.

Vietnam was like Afghanistan a long war of occupation to prop up a corrupt regime the average rural agrarian poor Vietnamese citizen didn't want or need or respect.

So we were always trying to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese just as the North Vietnamese constantly were too.

Ultimately in that prolonged effort we lost the war for hearts and minds here at home and the American People would no longer support the war and the war became political suicide for politicians who supported it.

Of course the military industrial complex, mining and drilling interests and bankers make a lot of money off of war so they spend a lot of money trying to win hearts and minds here in America and over there with expensive but relatively useless and ineffectual things like shopping malls for people to poor to shop in them.

Looks great here though, and as you said it makes a pretty picture.

A picture that speaks a thousand words about a corrupt government there out of touch with its people, and a more corrupt government here taxing us to pay for it all.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)Ahh yes, the old 'When caught, resort to personal attacks' tactic. Fantastic. I was wondering when you'd go there.

You mean when you were caught lying about something I said. Still haven't found that exact quote from me saying that the US should kill civilians since the Taliban does. And you won't. Liar.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)So you think there is a textbook of ethical decisions?

Each situation is different.

Textbook? Nope, but the US does operate under LOAC. Read up on it sometime.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
3)Sorry, just saying "wrong again" doesnt make it so. There is no yes/no to this question. Just as there was no yes/no to the question I asked you. These things arent black and what. And you have effectively proven you only see exactly that.

There is, you just don't want to say it. Is it right for the Taliban to engage US/NATO forces while using civilians as human shields?

1)I am not going to quote it again. You know what you said, and now that I have quoted it multiple times, so does everyone else. Keep playing the 'i want an exact quote game'. Doesnt change a thing.

2)LOAC. Thats classic. Tell me what that has do do with anything in this thread. Your deflections are getting weaker.

3)Thanks for reinforcing my point that you are too naive to see beyond black and white.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)I am not going to quote it again. You know what you said, and now that I have quoted it multiple times, so does everyone else. Keep playing the 'i want an exact quote game'. Doesnt change a thing.

You're absolutely right. Everyone knows you're a liar and don't have a freakin' leg to stand on with your accusations. Keep digging.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots[/i
2)LOAC. Thats classic. Tell me what that has do do with anything in this thread. Your deflections are getting weaker.

Really, Craftsman? Do you even know what LOAC is? You might want to do some research before you run your suck.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots[/i
3)Thanks for reinforcing my point that you are too naive to see beyond black and white.

Translation: You don't know what you're talking about, so you're going to start tapdancing.

So far, on just this thread, all you've done is proven yourself a liar and that you have absolutely no idea about COIN or what's going on in A-stan. Great job.