Afghanistan: America, Wtf.

[Phobotech]

What the hell are we doing?

Is this really justified? This happened Thursday, apparently, but I just heard of this...

Well, I KNEW we've been in there since 2001, but I thought we had left to go over to Iraq or some shit. But bombing a fucking Wedding Ceremony just to take a stab at some nut-fuck? Is it just me or is that just irresponsibly wasteful and inconsiderate? Not to mention hurtful to our reputation as a country.

Yes, I can see an underfunded group of militants hiding under the equivalent of "Operation Human-Shield" but doesn't that mean we should handle the situation more delicately to reduce Civilian casualties instead of saying, "Ah fuckit...they knew what they were getting into." and just dropping the bombs over the compounds before dusting off our hands in a smug, lack-of-foresight accomplishment?

Please discuss. Most of you have valid points to make out there.

[Jon-86]

How can this be surprising? Thats what war is, bombing civilians most of the time! The enemy dead dont count as they say.

[cellardoor6]

Taliban wages guerrilla war.
Taliban hides in civilian areas.
The US bombs them.
Civilians die by mistake.

It's a fact of war. It has happened before and it will happen again. People fail to realize it. They also fail to realize how much effort goes into minimizing civilian casualties.

People will usually come to the conclusion that cases of civilian deaths mean only two things; US forces did it on purpose or US forces did it because they are incompetent/trigger happy.

People usually fail to realize things like:
-The Taliban surround themselves with civilians as a standard procedure for them, deliberately endangering civilians. So it may be US bombs that killed the civilians in some instances, but the blood is on the hands of the Taliban because they basically attacked US forces while/shortly before hiding in civilian areas. They deliberately caused their death while the US inadvertently caused their deaths.

-The capability to drop bombs in close air support and surgical strikes is one that is almost exclusive to the US among the coalition/NATO military forces involved there. There is a high tempo of strikes going on all the time and since the US is the one carrying everyone else's weight in this regard, it seems like the US is more prone to bomb civilians or have friendly fire due to some malice or incompetence when neither is true. It's a simple fact of war, and even though the US does put forth enormous amounts of effort to avoid civilian casualties, shit like that happens.

Oh, and about the wedding party thing... people in the region sometimes fire their guns up into the air in celebration. For a pilot in the sky, whether in a helicopter or a plane, looking through their thermal image at the ground, seeing muzzle flashes like is going to look like hostile fire. They'd respond both as a matter of instinct to defend themselves, as well as the simple fact it would be unlikely that they'd automatically think it was a wedding party. It's not that hard to imagine how this could end up with civilians getting killed. And of course, the rebuttal to that would be something like "they should be able to tell it's not Taliban" or "they shouldn't ever shoot until they get confirmation that it's Taliban" but that ignores the complexity of the war, someone giving that rebuttal would be assuming to much and ignoring all the variables that make their grandiose condemnation of the US military pretty weak.

Now, I'm not saying that more things shouldn't be done to minimize civilian casualties. But then again, if you notice, the US is investigating it. The US is continually trying to find ways of minimizing civilian casualties. And that's essentially the biggest difference between the US and the people that are conspicuously absent from the equation in the minds of all the people that are going apeshit right now over civilian deaths in Afghanistan when the US is/may have been responsible.

[Saruman200]

That's the sad fact of war. Civilians get hit in the crossfire. The Taliban and other terrorist groups are among civilians. There not an army like NATO. They don't form checkpoints or military bases. There just normal civilians who've taken up arms to fight for what they believe in. I sympathise with the insurgeants of Afghanistan and Iraq. The real bad guys, the ones who bomb and murder innocent civilians, such as Al Qaeda really only make up three percent of who we're fighting. Mostly we're just fighting against militias of armed civilians, who are really just fighting to defend their homes and their beliefs. If America was invaded, I bet my life savings Americans would take up arms and fight back against the invader.

[Helicopterz]

Cellar: Don't they have fucking cameras n shit where you can pretty much see everything on the ground?

[KeithHybrid]

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Taliban wages guerrilla war.
Taliban hides in civilian areas.
The US bombs them.
Civilians die by mistake.

It's a fact of war. It has happened before and it will happen again. People fail to realize it. They also fail to realize how much effort goes into minimizing civilian casualties.

After reading that, I have to wonder what it's like to not have a soul.

And from what I read in the article, the US isn't doing enough to keep civilians safe.

And like what I said, we wouldn't be in this mess if we kept our business out of Iraw, since that's what led to Afghanistan going back to the way it was before we decided that we needed to fuck up the entire Middle East.

[magnostreak]

thats why the US needs to be sepritests again! if we were, we wouldn't be fighting this "war"

its all WWII's fault

[bcdemon]

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Taliban wages guerrilla war.
Taliban hides in civilian areas.
The US bombs them.
Civilians die by mistake.

Mistake? wow. 60 children and 19 women, by mistake huh? The US military says "30 Taliban insurgents were killed in the operation", but the Afghan military spokesman says "We couldn't and we haven't found any identification showing they are Taliban," So where were the Taliban hiding cellar? In your fucking head is where. The US has bombed many wedding parties in Iraq and Afghanistan, so this is no surprise. And like usual, the US denies any civilian casualties (which makes its way to America media), and then the truth reports come out about everyone dead being a civilian (which doesn't make it's way to America media). It has happened before and it will definitely happen again.

I completely understand that civilians can and do die in war. But after bombing multiple weddings in 2 different countries, chalking it up as casualties of war just doesn't cut it. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 8/24/08 10:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I completely understand that civilians can and do die in war. But after bombing multiple weddings in 2 different countries, chalking it up as casualties of war just doesn't cut it. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Because as we all know, defending US actions in a war is the equivallent of shooting civilians.

Thank You, when I rewrite Dante's Inferno, I'll be reminded to put defenders of military action on a lower level of hell then any other sin.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 8/24/08 10:02 AM, Helicopterz wrote: Cellar: Don't they have fucking cameras n shit where you can pretty much see everything on the ground?

Do they have time to do it? They can't just stop and scan it you know

[Musician]

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's a fact of war. It has happened before and it will happen again. People fail to realize it. They also fail to realize how much effort goes into minimizing civilian casualties.

Like what?

[JackPhantasm]

At 8/24/08 11:55 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote:
Do they have time to do it? They can't just stop and scan it you know

The bombs have automatic targeting systems. Wouldn't the cameras be similar?

If not they should do that. Because it would be easy.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 8/24/08 01:00 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

If not they should do that. Because it would be easy.

Depending on the reaction time

[neogeo57]

At 8/24/08 05:24 AM, Phobotech wrote: What the hell are we doing?

Is this really justified? This happened Thursday, apparently, but I just heard of this...

Well, I KNEW we've been in there since 2001, but I thought we had left to go over to Iraq or some shit. But bombing a fucking Wedding Ceremony just to take a stab at some nut-fuck? Is it just me or is that just irresponsibly wasteful and inconsiderate? Not to mention hurtful to our reputation as a country.

Yes, I can see an underfunded group of militants hiding under the equivalent of "Operation Human-Shield" but doesn't that mean we should handle the situation more delicately to reduce Civilian casualties instead of saying, "Ah fuckit...they knew what they were getting into." and just dropping the bombs over the compounds before dusting off our hands in a smug, lack-of-foresight accomplishment?

Please discuss. Most of you have valid points to make out there.

Well, just about everyone in WWII Bombed sivilians intentionly, and in the thousands.
Liberaks always use the "WWII was the right type of war!" excuse when they say the current wars are stupid.
I do admit that was a tradegy and a stupid thing to do.

[JackPhantasm]

At 8/24/08 01:10 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:
Depending on the reaction time

Yeah, streaming video is difficult. And there is the risk that it would break and whatnot.

The technology is there. They are flying in really fast though so ideally the cameras would have to be ahead of the bomb. Ideally.

Ideally there wouldn't be like any violence at all but that's an irrelevant point.

Do we realize that attacking the terrorists is like the reason they exist in the first place? How does that work.

It's like we want more terrorism, that's how I feel about it sometimes.

Anyway, the technology is easily there to scan an area beforehand, right before hand. Reset button on the bomb etc. I mean, we care about human life right? I know "these things happen" etc. But there's really no excuse, when you have the technology, and the money.

[bcdemon]

At 8/24/08 11:15 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 8/24/08 10:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I completely understand that civilians can and do die in war. But after bombing multiple weddings in 2 different countries, chalking it up as casualties of war just doesn't cut it. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Because as we all know, defending US actions in a war is the equivallent of shooting civilians.

Defending the killing of 1 or 2 civilians in a shoot out with a pile of Terrorists is one thing. But wiping out almost 80 civilians and no traces of even one enemy? That reeks of incompetence.

Thank You, when I rewrite Dante's Inferno, I'll be reminded to put defenders of military action on a lower level of hell then any other sin.

Damn, even as a defender of innocent civilians, I scored a Level 2

[Idiot-Finder]

At 8/24/08 06:13 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:

Except that not doing anything won't help stop terrorists either, with that something's gotta be done and that's why I'm hoping Afghanistan will be stabilized before the troops left, should've went for the kill in Tora Bora but that's a different story...

[Bramly-apple]

Its tragic that this happened and there was probabaly a mistake in intel reports or something . Its easy to criticise the US forces about friendly fire and civillian casulties but the fact is you don't know the full picture. You weren't there in the plane when it happened or on the ground being bombed, you have to realise that you can't win a war without some collateral damage, it dosen't make it right but its unavoidable in war. That bombing run may of saved dozens of US or British soildiers lifes.

[Saruman200]

At 8/24/08 07:28 PM, Bramly-apple wrote: Its tragic that this happened and there was probabaly a mistake in intel reports or something . Its easy to criticise the US forces about friendly fire and civillian casulties but the fact is you don't know the full picture. You weren't there in the plane when it happened or on the ground being bombed

Exactly. Don't second guess a military operation from an armchair.

you have to realise that you can't win a war without some collateral damage, it dosen't make it right but its unavoidable in war.

Very true.

:That bombing run may of saved dozens of US or British soildiers lifes.

This part I disagree with. US and British soldiers are just that: soldiers. They know the risk, it's there job. Their deaths may be tragic, but better them than innocent civilians. You can't use the excuse "It saved our soldiers lives!" to justify the killing of civilians. Better soldiers who came to fight voluntarily than civilians who arn't even a part of a conflict. It's sad, but if you had to make a choice between the lives of soldiers and the lives of civilians, even if the soldiers were on your side, you should choose the lives of the civilians.

[cellardoor6]

At 8/24/08 10:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 8/24/08 06:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Taliban wages guerrilla war.
Taliban hides in civilian areas.
The US bombs them.
Civilians die by mistake.

Mistake? wow. 60 children and 19 women, by mistake huh?

I rest my case.

People such as the perpetually ignorant bcdemon comes in and pretends that it couldn't have been a mistake, even though every single time he ever talks about any military subject he gets proved wrong and shown not to know anything.

If there was a complex where Taliban were hiding, or were thought to be hiding, and it got bombed, it's not impossible that so many civilians died. It wouldn't require a meticulous, deliberate killing spree to kill that many people in a strike mission by accident.

If a bombs were used on a complex, which is the case in this specific event, the US wouldn't have been aware that there were so many women and children inside. The US has nightvision and thermal imaging, but the US can't see through walls. Not yet at least.

The US military says "30 Taliban insurgents were killed in the operation", but the Afghan military spokesman says "We couldn't and we haven't found any identification showing they are Taliban,"

Because the Afghan military is composed entirely of forensics experts. Right.

The US has bombed many wedding parties in Iraq and Afghanistan, so this is no surprise.

Wedding parties where people took out machine guns and rifles and shot into the air, invoking an attack by pilots who acted accordingly.

Thusly it was a mistake, obviously.

And like usual, the US denies any civilian casualties

Um no, actually the US did admit civilian casualties.

(which makes its way to America media), and then the truth reports come out

You mean an alternate account that you will claim is "the truth" just because you want it to be.

I completely understand that civilians can and do die in war. But after bombing multiple weddings in 2 different countries, chalking it up as casualties of war just doesn't cut it.

You're pretending that the US is deliberately bombing wedding parties... why exactly? You act like the Us just wants to kill civilians, but then you pretend the US covers it up. Yet... wouldn't bombing a wedding party be kind of a conspicuous act? Wouldn't that be counterproductive?

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Whatever helps you perpetuate your fiendish bias against the US to help feel better about your existence.

[SolInvictus]

At 8/24/08 05:24 AM, Phobotech wrote: What the hell are we doing?

war.

[SolInvictus]

At 8/24/08 08:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/24/08 10:31 AM, bcdemon wrote: And like usual, the US denies any civilian casualties

Um no, actually the US did admit civilian casualties.

i would love to know where bc gets this idea that civilian casualties are being covered up. i read about the military admitting to them constantly, the higher the death toll the greater predominance it has in the news.

[cellardoor6]

At 8/24/08 08:41 PM, SolInvictus wrote: i would love to know where bc gets this idea that civilian casualties are being covered up. i read about the military admitting to them constantly, the higher the death toll the greater predominance it has in the news.

I know, it's funny because it was an article by an American news organization that the OP used in the first place.

Oh, and also... I'd just like to point out something I was thinking about. On one hand people like bcdemon say the Afghan military and government, including Karzai, are just our puppets. That's usually said as a rebuttal to the claim that US really did allow independent democracies to exist in the countries we invaded. But then, those very same people, like bcdemon, pounce when the Afghan military/government criticize the US.

So when it's convenient for bcdemon, Afghanistan's government and president are just Bush's puppets. But when that's not a convenient position to take, whatever they say negative about the US is absolute fact compared to whatever the US military says which absolutely has to be a lie. Talk about having it both ways.

I bet that if in a week from now a story about civilians dying again comes up, and the Afghans say the US didn't do it but say... some Arabic news channel says Us civilians killed them, bcdemon would revert back to the puppet theory.

[Musician]

I have yet to see my question answered.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 8/24/08 09:36 PM, Musician wrote: I have yet to see my question answered.

Nobody cares.

[cellardoor6]

At 8/24/08 09:36 PM, Musician wrote: I have yet to see my question answered.

-The use of precision weapons such as Hellfire missiles or JDAM GPS-guided bombs in place of artillery would be cheaper but less precise and would result in higher civilian casualties in the surrounding area.
-The almost excruciatingly long and drawn out procedure from the point a possible target is identified, to the point that forces are given the clearance to deploy weapons at all.
-The simple fact that events like are mentioned in the article are rare, showing that the US is still putting effort into preventing civilian deaths because they are an exception and not the norm. If the US wasn't trying to minimize civilian casualties, the US would be carpet bombing the civilian areas of Afghanistan similar to firebombings in Europe during WWII, instead of using targeted strikes like it does.

[cellardoor6]

At 8/24/08 10:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/24/08 09:36 PM, Musician wrote: I have yet to see my question answered.

-The use of precision weapons such as Hellfire missiles or JDAM GPS-guided bombs in place of artillery would be cheaper but less precise and would result in higher civilian casualties in the surrounding area.

*artillery, which would be cheaper* (in comparison to the Hellfires and JDAMS.

It would be much cheaper for the US to use artillery and dumb bombs than precision weapons. But the US uses predominately GPS-guided and laser-guided weapons in order to be more precise and to negate the kinds of collateral damage that would be seen if they weren't used. A single hellfire missile costs tens of thousands of dollars. A Single GPS-guided bomb like the JDAM costs tens of thousand dollars...

[Musician]

At 8/24/08 10:05 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: -The use of precision weapons such as Hellfire missiles or JDAM GPS-guided bombs in place of artillery would be cheaper but less precise and would result in higher civilian casualties in the surrounding area.
-The almost excruciatingly long and drawn out procedure from the point a possible target is identified, to the point that forces are given the clearance to deploy weapons at all.
-The simple fact that events like are mentioned in the article are rare, showing that the US is still putting effort into preventing civilian deaths because they are an exception and not the norm. If the US wasn't trying to minimize civilian casualties, the US would be carpet bombing the civilian areas of Afghanistan similar to firebombings in Europe during WWII, instead of using targeted strikes like it does.

Fair enough. Now here are the ways the US occupation force is increasing the civilian death toll with their tactics:

-Although the US does precision weapons, the US does not always use such weapons for bombings. The cluster bomb is still employed by the US despite it's use notorious for causing massive amounts of a civilian casualties. Last time I heard, about 98% of all cluster bomb casualties are civilians. Although not so long ago this was voted on in congress (they decided that the number of malfunction cluster bombs had to be decreased by a certain times, I think), the fact that cluster bombs have been employed for so long in the face of such a gruesome statistic is telling.
-The US orders it's troops to kill indiscriminately. every time and IED explodes, it is protocol to kill everything in the immediate area.
-The US military does not provide enough resources for proper investigations into anonymous tips. Former soldiers from Iraq have stated that many killings by US troops, ordered or not ordered, go unreported.

[bcdemon]

At 8/24/08 08:08 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 8/24/08 10:31 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Because the Afghan military is composed entirely of forensics experts. Right.

A natural born Afghani might be able to tell a Taliban fighter by his looks, his clothing, maybe some tattoos or markings. I certainly doubt dental and DNA records are going to help much in Afghanistan.

And like usual, the US denies any civilian casualties

Um no, actually the US did admit civilian casualties.

You are correct, my bad, I was reading from a different incident in which the US "blamed the claims [of civilian casualties] on militant propaganda and said its missiles only struck insurgents." Even though their missile killed 27 civilians walking to a funeral.
In this case the US claimed there were "only five civilians were among those killed", when in fact the number exceeds 70 civilians, according to the Afghanis.

I completely understand that civilians can and do die in war. But after bombing multiple weddings in 2 different countries, chalking it up as casualties of war just doesn't cut it.

You're pretending that the US is deliberately bombing wedding parties... why exactly?

I'm just saying that the US bombing a wedding party is not a surprise.

You act like the Us just wants to kill civilians, but then you pretend the US covers it up.

I don't think the US wants to kill civis, but I doubt that they put a whole lot of care in preventing civilian casualties, for the slight possibility of killing an enemy fighter.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Whatever helps you perpetuate your fiendish bias against the US to help feel better about your existence.

LMAO, I don't need the US bombing weddings and funerals for me to feel better about my existence. My family and my dirt bike make me feel better about my existence.

[cellardoor6]

At 8/24/08 10:25 PM, Musician wrote: Fair enough. Now here are the ways the US occupation force is increasing the civilian death toll with their tactics:

-Although the US does precision weapons, the US does not always use such weapons for bombings. The cluster bomb is still employed by the US despite it's use notorious for causing massive amounts of a civilian casualties.

Cluster bombs are tactically necessary sometimes. Therefore their use is not a deliberate attempt to kill civilians and not using them might be counterproductive because less dead Taliban in many cases means more dead Afghans.

Last time I heard, about 98% of all cluster bomb casualties are civilians.

That doesn't mean 98% of the victims of American cluster bombs are civilians.

Although not so long ago this was voted on in congress (they decided that the number of malfunction cluster bombs had to be decreased by a certain times, I think)

That would imply that the US is working to reduce civilian casualties.

the fact that cluster bombs have been employed for so long in the face of such a gruesome statistic is telling.

Telling of the fact that cluster bombs are still necessary sometimes.

-The US orders it's troops to kill indiscriminately. every time and IED explodes, it is protocol to kill everything in the immediate area.

That's completely bullshit.

Next.

-The US military does not provide enough resources for proper investigations into anonymous tips.

Yeah they do.

Former soldiers from Iraq have stated that many killings by US troops, ordered or not ordered, go unreported.

And yet... anonymous tips have ended up with troops being Court Marshalled and pulled from duty several times.