US airstrikes 'kill Afghan civilians'

reply to post by jerico65

The troops were approaching a village in Sherzad District 'based on accurate intelligence that senior Taliban leadership was present' when they were fired on with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades from several directions, the statement said.

In the ensuing clash, between 15 and 20 insurgents were killed, including two Taliban leaders, it said.

The troops continued to come under fire as they were retreating, which is why they called in air support, according to the military's statement.

This is what they tend to do, always call for air strikes, that is terrorism at its best.

While the Taliban isn't doing that right themselves:

One ISAF soldier was killed in a roadside bombing in eastern Afghanistan Friday, the military alliance said without providing further details.

Twelve Afghan construction workers were killed Thursday in roadside bombings in the eastern provinces of Kunar and Ghasni, ISAF said. The bombings happened despite recent orders by Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar to avoid civilian casualties.

sify.com...

Both same source.

The difference is the technological differences. While Americans have satellites, guided missiles, helicopters, almost perfect co-ordinations, drones, jets, new age jets, special forces with extensive training etc etc etc etc etc etc

Afghan insurgency have non of those so in desperate attempt try desperate tactics and weapons (suicide bombings, IEDs, RPG). That is pretty much it.

If only they had a hundred stingers, wait, it will come soon, that is the last prophecy to come true.

After the war, America, just like USSR will truly realized who was truly supporting the Afghan insurgents.

I'm keen also to find out.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by oozyism]

The Soviets killed a crap load of Afghan civilians as well, probably a lot worse than the U.S. are doing. But that is'nt the point, it is the fact that all war=hell, hell is absolute chaos, senseless violence. It will continue to happen as long as nations have differing political views and religions.


Solution?


One world government and religion.

reply to post by Centurionx

Watch how people come and justify it by one word:
WAR!!!

The first phase began with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and their first battles with various opposition groups.[40] Soviet troops entered Afghanistan along two ground routes and one air corridor, quickly taking control of the major urban centers, military bases and strategic installations. However, the presence of Soviet troops did not have the desired effect of pacifying the country. On the contrary, it exacerbated a nationalistic feeling, causing the rebellion to spread further.[42] Babrak Karmal, Afghanistan's new president, charged the Soviets with causing an increase in the unrest, and demanded that the 40th Army step in and quell the rebellion, as his own army had proved untrustworthy.[43] Thus, Soviet troops found themselves drawn into fighting against urban uprisings, tribal armies (called lashkar), and sometimes against mutinying Afghan Army units. These forces mostly fought in the open, and Soviet airpower and artillery made short work of them.[44]

- The occupying forces quickly took over Kabul: "quickly taking control of the major urban centers, military bases and strategic installations"

- The presence of the occupying force didn't help much as intended: "presence of Soviet troops did not have the desired effect of pacifying the country"

- The presence of occupying forces made the matter worse: "causing the rebellion to spread further."

- Karzai blames Afghan casualties (by the hands of NATO) for the increase in unrest: "Babrak Karmal, Afghanistan's new president, charged the Soviets with causing an increase in the unrest"

- Karzai demanded, more like begged the occupying force to help him crush the rebillion: "and demanded that the 40th Army step in and quell the rebellion"

- Karzai's army is untrustworthy, that is why he needs NATO: "his own army had proved untrustworthy."

- At the beginning of the war, the uprising fought in open which was useless against the occupying force's massive fire power: "These forces mostly fought in the open, and Soviet airpower and artillery made short work of them.

The war now developed into a new pattern: the Soviets occupied the cities and main axis of communication, while the mujahideen, (which the Soviet Army soldiers called 'Dushman')[45] divided into small groups, waged a guerrilla war. Almost 80 percent of the country escaped government control. Soviet troops were deployed in strategic areas in the northeast, especially along the road from Termez to Kabul. In the west, a strong Soviet presence was maintained to counter Iranian influence

- The occupying force came to cities after the bombardment: "Soviets occupied the cities and main axis of communication"

- The insurgents divided and started a guerrilla warfare which still continues: "divided into small groups, waged a guerrilla war"

- Most of Afghanistan is not under Karzai government's control: "80 percent of the country escaped government control"

Periodically the Soviet Army undertook multi-divisional offensives into mujahideen-controlled areas. Between 1980 and 1985, nine offensives were launched into the strategically important Panjshir Valley, but government control of the area did not improve.[47] Heavy fighting also occurred in the provinces neighbouring Pakistan, where cities and government outposts were constantly under siege by the mujahideen. Massive Soviet operations would regularly break these sieges, but the mujahideen would return as soon as the coast was clear.[48] In the west and south, fighting was more sporadic, except in the cities of Herat and Kandahar, that were always partly controlled by the resistance.[49]

I can't repeat myself, getting boring. So read what it says:

- NATO's offensive: "multi-divisional offensives into mujahideen-controlled areas"

- Government control still sux down south: "government control of the area did not improve"

- Pakistan anyone?: "fighting also occurred in the provinces neighbouring Pakistan"




There is a whole wikipedia article in this, just replace USSR with the current occupying forces, and replace the Babrak puppet regimes, with Karzai puppet regime.

It is like a prophecy, so coooool

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by listerofsmeg

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by listerofsmeg

 

Yes they were evil.

So we would have needed to atomic-bomb how many cities in Japan to catch up to Chairman Mao?

The answer is.....

Two hundred-forty.

Looks like we need to do some more bombing to even up the numbers!

Oh i see, so not killing as much as mao makes you the good guys eh?

Yes, it really does.

Thanks for making my point for me, too!

At the beginning of our 'exchange' here, you said this....

america is the biggest civilian killer.

Now you say this.......

Oh i see, so not killing as much as mao makes you the good guys eh?

So, to answer your question again, killing less civilians does tend to make us the 'good guys'.

wow you should work for the papers with quoting like that, they were my last words in my post but just before i said "not including the old days when whole cities were burnt to the ground, america is the biggest civilian killer."

reply to post by listerofsmeg
I think you should be the one working for the mass media. What with calling America the biggest killer of civilians,

not including the old days when whole cities were burnt to the ground

.

Well, Chairman Mao killed far more than we ever have(even including our burning of cities in Japan and Germany!), without burning any cities!

He starved them, shot them and chopped their heads off.

I just want to make clear that it is very easy to draw a picture of Evil America, killing more civilians than anyone ever has.

It is easier than finding facts and telling the truth.

At least we can thank Pfc. Bradley E. Manning, Julian Assange and Wikileaks for publication of the Afghanistan War Diary.

im not saying that america is evil and completely carless when it comes to civilian lives, but pointing the finger at some figures from the past doesn't change the whats happening today.
this is my last reply to this because you seem to believe that histories bigger wrongs makes america's smaller.

ps.. the british empire once covered 13,000,000 square miles and held 25% of the worlds population and we didn't get all that with kind words but i wouldn't defend the actions of what occured then and wouldn't make any excuses or point my finger at other evils.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by listerofsmeg]

reply to post by listerofsmeg
Yes, you are correct.

My belief is called 'perspective'.

In an earlier post in this thread, I stated that I believe that humans are inherently flawed. That relates to having a peaceful society.

If humans did not have this 'flaw', we would have become extinct long ago.