UN Report says Taliban responsible for 76% of All Civilian Casualties

This thread is stupid. Uninformed and believing the propaganda, it should be CLOSED

reply to post by mobiusmale

Obviously you didn't read ZB's book as was suggested above.
come back after you read it.
It will boggle yuor mind...
Or maybe read the US war plans tabled before 911 that might fix your problem.

I'll hold your hand here:

The Independent UK: Afghanis Want Taliban Back

muslimmatters.org...
it contains links to the Independant article,
not to mention a little bit about what the people who are there think about it...

But hey, never let a few facts spoil a good opinion...

Oh and look, now they expect an offensive the U$ is leaving it to the Canadians to deal with!
There is little support for the war here no wonder they're throwing the BS propoganda at us yet again....



[edit on 10-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Danbones


It's like Nazi germany all over, just spread the propaganda control the media and BAM do whatever you want to whoever you want and people will always 'justify' it. The US government NEEDS to be wiped out and replaced with uncorrupt loyal servants!

I mean anyone whos a politician or senator or the president, should be on 40k a year MAX! That way people are doin it for the right reasons and actually want change instead of the monetary, greed and corruption they strive for today. I mean really why should they be well paid they dont do jack.

Originally posted by Skinon
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

At the end of the day YOUR country is not the 'good' guys, you are delusional. You shouldn't even be in those countries in the first place!!!!

If you werent there then no civilians would be getting killed because of the SHAM war your government is perpertrating!!

Ok...so much that could be said here, about this and some of your previous posts in this thread.

But, are really trying to sell the idea that the Taliban were not murdering innocent civilians in large numbers before this war began...really? There were no civilians getting killed by the Taliban?

The fact of the matter is that (maybe wrongly) America, Canada, England, Germany, Australia (and more) were doing very little if anything about the on-going murderous campaign against the Afghan people that was being waged by the Taliban government.

But when they decided to step outside of their impoverished hell-hole of a country, and try to project their world-view (via Al Qaeda) by way of an attack on New York and Washington civilians we decided to end their little reign of terror.

We threw them out of power...yet they still prowl around the countryside, as roving bands of murderers, and kill and maim whomever they can get their hands on.

The only sham here is your trying to paint the U.S. as in the wrong on what has transpired since 9/11. Give your foggy head a shake.

reply to post by mobiusmale


You missed the point completely, obviously you believe the official story on 9/11 too. I may aswell try to tell a christian that god doesn't exist. I hope oneday you wake up out of the bubble you live in. Switch off fox news and come out into the real world.

This thread has wasted enough of my life so i aint comin back here.

Goodluck to you!

reply to post by Skinon


just like your country.

won't happen anywhere with thoes guys.

thanks and don't let the door.....



[edit on 10-8-2010 by fooks]

Originally posted by mobiusmale

Originally posted by Skinon
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

But when they decided to step outside of their impoverished hell-hole of a country, and try to project their world-view (via Al Qaeda) by way of an attack on New York and Washington civilians we decided to end their little reign of terror.

Are you for real? You have shown a complete lack of critical thinking. British born Ahmed Omar of Pakistani ISI wired the money to Mohammad Atta.

The Pittsburgh Tribune notes that there "are many in Musharraf's government who believe that Saeed Sheikh's power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA."

Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in his book In the Line of Fire, stated that Sheikh was originally recruited by British intelligence agency, MI6, while studying at the London School of Economics. He alleges Omar Sheikh was sent to the Balkans by MI6 to engage in jihadi operations. Musharraf later went on to state, "At some point, he probably became a rogue or double agent"

Keep digging if you want the truth...I doubt you do...



[edit on 10-8-2010 by SmokeandShadow]

reply to post by mobiusmale

But, are really trying to sell the idea that the Taliban were not murdering innocent civilians in large numbers before this war began...really? There were no civilians getting killed by the Taliban?

What was happening before the war in terms of dead civilians is of no relevance. The thousands of innocent lives that have been lost during the ten years is. The article you reference in your opening post is accounting for the first six months of 2010. I dread to think what the total number innocent lives lost is after ten years of fighting. Lives lost by the actions of the Taliban and NATO, but would assert NATO will be responsible for the greater loss.

The fact of the matter is that (maybe wrongly) America, Canada, England, Germany, Australia (and more) were doing very little if anything about the on-going murderous campaign against the Afghan people that was being waged by the Taliban government.

How the Taliban ran their government before the war and the way it mistreated people was never our concern, nor was it ever a reason to go to war.

But when they decided to step outside of their impoverished hell-hole of a country, and try to project their world-view (via Al Qaeda) by way of an attack on New York and Washington civilians we decided to end their little reign of terror.

The Taliban never manipulated al-Qaeda, nor did they perpetrate the attacks on 9/11. al-Qaeda had sought and got sanctuary in Afghanistan, but quickly left and setup shop in other countries (notably Pakistan) soon after NATO invaded. The pretext of war wasn't to remove the Taliban from power, but go after al-Qaeda. In fact, the Taliban were being courted by oil companies long before the war looking to make a deal with them. The majority of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi nationals.

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

I'll hold your hand here:

The Independent UK: Afghanis Want Taliban Back

muslimmatters.org...
it contains links to the Independant article,
not to mention a little bit about what the people who are there think about it...

But hey, never let a few facts spoil a good opinion...

Wow...27% percent of some segment of the male population, in one section of the country supports the Taliban. That is very convincing. I wonder what the women think? If they had been asked, I would guess that the number might have dropped by at least half (speculation of course)...so, maybe 14 or 15% of the population would support a return to Taliban rule - maybe.

Even at the bloated number of 27% given...does that represent a majority? Does this support your idea that the Afghans want to live under the Taliban again? Of course not!

"Whatever the cause of the bloodshed, the local population almost always blames the foreign soldiers in their midst."

Why? Because they are misinformed or uninformed. I wonder if even that small minority would still support the Taliban if they realized that they are behind over 75% of the violence. Not likely.

Thanks for holding my hand enough to provide additional ammunition for my point of view. Quite charitable of you.

reply to post by mobiusmale

"Whatever the cause of the bloodshed, the local population almost always blames the foreign soldiers in their midst."

NATO is perceived as an invading force. Afghani people didn't ask for our help to liberate them from the Taliban; we invaded to go after al-Qaeda. Removing all emotions, how would you feel being occupied by a foreign military, especially one you didn't seek help from?

Why? Because they are misinformed or uninformed. I wonder if even that small minority would still support the Taliban if they realized that they are behind over 75% of the violence. Not likely.

Again, these figures are all based on the first six months of 2010, compared to the same period in 2009. This is not indicative of anything when viewing the war as a whole.

Look everybody.

I know that folks here at ATS love to dive seventeen layers deep into one conspiracy theory or another, on every scrap of knowledge that is offered. It is the nature of the forum, so I guess I cannot complain too much.

However, just because you happen to believe that the Easter Bunny was behind 9/11, and you have mountains of interweaving self-supporting unproven theories to back up your thinking...does not make me or anybody else who does not buy into your version of reality uninformed or unreasoning.

1) I believe that Al Qaeda, at Bin Laden's bidding, was behind 9/11. Guilty.
2) I believe that the Taliban were in cahoots with Al Qaeda. Guilty.
3) I believe that the Taliban miscalculated the American reaction to the attack and got their hats handed to them. Guilty.

All of that aside...as it relates to this thread...

The Taliban, according to the source, is currently responsible for over 75% of Afghan civilian casualties. The Taliban...guilty!

Address yourselves to that, if you can muster the self-discipline, instead of blathering on about everything but the point of the thread.

reply to post by mobiusmale


With respect, I have been trying, but you can't jump to conclusions based on six-month-old data. It means nothing in the long run. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been lost in two needless wars and that's the real horror. al-Qaeda killed people, the Taliban killed people and the West has killed a lot of people.

Edit to say: See you around this thread has no purpose.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by LarryLove]

Whenever I have gone to war I have never gone to be the "good guy" but have always endevoured to be the baddest mofo in the field.. You people can bitch and moan all you like but you aint there... The taliban, or more accurately tribal warlords, have lived this dog eat dog existence, virtually unchanged for a thousand years.. Their culture is straight out of a Ghengis Khan book.. They are badasses who think nothing of killing their own.. They add nothing to modern society accept to remind us where we came from and what we were hundreds of years ago.. A cultural timewarp and dead end with no room for growth...

So when fighting them we have to fight them in the only way they would understand, and that is using good old fashioned medieval tactics on them.. Yet we do not.. We fight a modern war against a medieval enemy who does not value ife as we do.. Therefore we should get medieval on their asses... Take the shackles off our soldiers and encourage their inner battlefield predator to do what they do.. Infantrymen are not sociology students but are stone killers each and everyone.. You cannot send sociology students and little girlies with flowers and hugs to war...

If I were in charge of operations.. I would be carpet bombing them into submission and winning hearts and minds in the language their culture has ingrained into them., By fear...



[edit on 10-8-2010 by Yissachar1]

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by mobiusmale

 

Edit to say: See you around this thread has no purpose.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by LarryLove]

I agree with you, but perhaps for different reasons.

On ATS there is almost no point in posting a thread that presents evidence that goes counter to the prevailing belief that the U.S. is the root of all that is evil in this world.

So, yeah, see you around I guess.

Originally posted by mobiusmale
1) I believe that Al Qaeda, at Bin Laden's bidding, was behind 9/11. Guilty.
2) I believe that the Taliban were in cahoots with Al Qaeda. Guilty.
3) I believe that the Taliban miscalculated the American reaction to the attack and got their hats handed to them. Guilty.

All of that aside...as it relates to this thread...

The Taliban, according to the source, is currently responsible for over 75% of Afghan civilian casualties. The Taliban...guilty!

Address yourselves to that, if you can muster the self-discipline, instead of blathering on about everything but the point of the thread.

Mobius
Somewhere in this quagmire of detailed charts and reports you will find an ACCURATE count of non-combatants killed and wounded by all parties toting a weapon.
wardiary....__._/afg/sort/date/2009_09_0.html

These may or may not assist in support of your position. If nothing else it will help to distinguish propaganda from reality.

I do however believe that you have lost a great deal of credibility with points # 1, 2 & 3. Which by default, have placed you in the position of viewing Americas actions as " Good "

reply to post by dazbog


im with you on this.

an egyptian, lebanese, and an arabian led by a saudi results in war with iraq......
there isn't a whole lot of this that makes sense.
if this is true then why hide so much footage and images of what happened to the petagon.


[edit on 10-8-2010 by listerofsmeg]

Hasn't anyone learnt from the wikileaks leak that US soldiers record civilian deaths as insurgents. And how are the UN going to be there to record this themselves at every single event, and so they are relying on garbage information from US forces.

I have no idea what the actual figures of civilian deaths caused by each side, but we do know the UN data is probably false if it relies on US military figures (whether from only 2010 or the whole of the war).

[edit on 10-8-2010 by john124]

Originally posted by LarryLove
so you are reading this article in the wrong way.

From 1 January to 30 June 2010, UNAMA Human Rights Unit documented 3,268 civilian casualties including 1,271 deaths and 1,997 injuries. AGEs were responsible for 2,477 casualties (76 per cent of all casualties, up 53 per cent from 2009) while 386 were attributed to PGF activities (12 per cent of all casualties, down 30 per cent from 2009).

The Guardian's article also attributes the reduction in civilian casualties to General Stanley McChrystal, who deployed harm reduction tactics in Afghanistan. I think if we look at the numbers of innocent lives killed over nearly ten years, NATO will account for a great many of them.

I swear.
How is reducing civilian deaths wrong?
People can find rain clouds on a sunny day.

reply to post by john124


Nah...

Not just from US military statistics. I think her and her unborn child could be considered "Civilians". Wouldn't you agree?


Taliban publicly flog, then execute pregnant woman in Afghanistan

first of all op, consider who did the poll and that will be good enough answer for you...yea like UN would give us a non-biased poll showing how little casualties they produced...just be a little reasonable and not feed us any disinfo polls and then support them, thanks