Afghan leader Karzai issues 'last warning' to Nato

bikerdruid

Philosopher
B
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,361
Location
North Peace Bioregion of theGreat Boreal Forest
i remember a time when i thought we were the 'good guys'.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-south-asia-13589193
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has forcefully condemned the killing of 14 civilians in the south-west of the country in a suspected Nato air strike.

Mr Karzai said his government had repeatedly asked the US to stop raids which end up killing Afghan civilians and this was his "last warning".

A Nato spokesman said a team had been sent to Helmand province to investigate the attack carried out on Saturday.

Afghan officials say all those killed were women and children.

The strike took place in Nawzad district after a US Marines base came under attack.

The air strike, targeted at insurgents, struck two civilian homes, killing two women and 12 children, reports say.

"The president called this incident a great mistake and the murdering of Afghanistan's children and women, and on behalf of the Afghan people gives his last warning to the US troops and US officials in this regard," his office said.
 
His last warning? Is that supposed to be a threat or just an indication that he'll finally shut up (after all it is the last one)?
 
According to another story, NATO claims that the taliban attackers attacked from the same compound where civilians were.

But in a conflicting account, a high-level NATO official said Sunday night that nine civilians were killed in the strike, which was aimed at five insurgents who attacked a coalition foot patrol and killed a Marine. The insurgents continued to fire from inside a compound when NATO forces called in the strike.

“Unfortunately, the compound the insurgents purposefully occupied was later discovered to house innocent civilians,” the official, Maj. Gen. John Toolan, commander of NATO forces in the Southwest region, said in a statement.
Click to expand...
 
Puppycow said:
According to another story, NATO claims that the taliban attackers attacked from the same compound where civilians were.
Click to expand...

That read like a joke, sorry. If you call in a strike on a house you take responsibility for the potential civilian victim, and your own lack of good info, you don't wiggle around and "we targeted the nasties but found out later there were , you know, like, people living in those house. Who would have thunk it ? People in houses !!". no **** sherlock.
 
Then of course this could all be propaganda by the Taliban. One tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan has been for insurgents to invade someones home, kill everyone inside, then shoot at Americans from the house. Once Americans return fire, the insurgents run, and then the Americans discover a whole bunch of dead civilians.
 
Aepervius said:
That read like a joke, sorry. If you call in a strike on a house you take responsibility for the potential civilian victim, and your own lack of good info, you don't wiggle around and "we targeted the nasties but found out later there were , you know, like, people living in those house. Who would have thunk it ? People in houses !!". no **** sherlock.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's the forces occupying the position who are responsible for civilians within the position. If combatants choose to use a civilian-occupied position as a fire base, theirs is the guilt for any civilian casualties incurred when their opponents return fire.

This should be obvious.
 
So what, he's going to make good on his threat to join the Taliban? Great, then we can justifiably kill him.

The Taliban use civilians as human shields and attack from within occupied compounds in order to make headlines and because they are cowards while the jihad apologists in the West repeat the story removed from the context of the situation. Shocking news story. Wow.
 
bikerdruid said:
i remember a time when i thought we were the 'good guys'.
Click to expand...

I don't remember a time when you thought we were the good guys. Must have been a long time ago.

Afghan officials say all those killed were women and children.
Click to expand...

I'll let you in on a little secret. Claims of civilian casualties are often an extortion racket. NATO pays money to victims and relatives of victims, so there's a strong incentive to exaggerate or even fabricate these claims. It's kind of funny that you're so willing to greet statements from western governments with skepticism, but it doesn't occur to you that anyone else might ever be lying.
 
Stylesjl said:
His last warning? Is that supposed to be a threat or just an indication that he'll finally shut up (after all it is the last one)?
Click to expand...


He's your puppet. If he warns in this way, you should indeed take it "very seriously". What the "Mayor of Kabul" says is "stop it or they'll take me out, and good luck with that." Before this latest event: Bored to death in Afghanistan

Asia Times said:
[...] For Second Time in 3 Days, NATO Raid Kills Afghan Child.

The New York Times piece under this headline reports on how "NATO" night raiders (usually US special operations forces) killed a 15-year-old boy, the son of an Afghan National Army soldier, sleeping in his family fields with a shotgun beside him.

In the incident two days earlier the headline alludes to, another crew of night raiders killed a 12-year-old girl sleeping in her backyard, as well as her uncle, an Afghan police officer. And who's even mentioning the eight private security guards killed in an air strike as May began?

As it happens, however, from the moment that a B-52 and two B-1B bombers, using precision-guided weapons, destroyed a village wedding party in December 2001, killing 110 out of 112 revelers (only the first of numerous wedding parties to be blown away during these years), such civilian casualties have been the drumbeat behind the war. The Afghan dead - slaughtered by Taliban suicide bombers and IEDs as well have risen in a charnel heap high above those of September 11, 2001.

Accompanying such stories over the years have been passages like this one from the Times piece: "When morning came, an angry crowd gathered in Narra, the boy's village, and more than 200 people marched with his body to the district center. Some of the men were armed and confronted the police, shouting anti-American slogans and throwing rocks at police vehicles and the ... government center, according to the district governor and the [local school] headmaster. "

This is the never-ending story of the war, the one whose only variations involve whether, faced with such deaths, US military spokespeople will stonewall and deny, launch an "investigation" that goes nowhere, or offer a pro forma apology. When it came to the death of that girl recently, an apology was indeed issued, but her father made the essential point: "They killed my 12-year-old daughter and my brother-in-law and then told me, ‘We are sorry.' What does it mean? What pain can be cured by this word 'sorry'?" [...]
Click to expand...
 
Aepervius said:
That read like a joke, sorry. If you call in a strike on a house you take responsibility for the potential civilian victim
Click to expand...
Absolutely wrong. The civilian casualties lie entirely with the Taliban, in fact it's a war crime to use civilian areas as fighting positions. The idea is to not legitimize the tactic of using civilians as shields, which apparently you want to do.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Absolutely wrong. The civilian casualties lie entirely with the Taliban, in fact it's a war crime to use civilian areas as fighting positions. The idea is to not legitimize the tactic of using civilians as shields, which apparently you want to do.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to agree on this. IF indeed the Taliban fired from inside a house containing civilians, civilan casualties are 100% their responsibility. Not less horrifying or tragic, but an important distinction anyway.
 
WildCat said:
Absolutely wrong. The civilian casualties lie entirely with the Taliban, in fact it's a war crime to use civilian areas as fighting positions. The idea is to not legitimize the tactic of using civilians as shields, which apparently you want to do.
Click to expand...

Obviously the Soldiers should have stormed this house (without firing a shot), arrested the militants, and put them on trial.


Or something?
 
IDB87 said:
Obviously the Soldiers should have stormed this house (without firing a shot), arrested the militants, and put them on trial.


Or something?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't work. When Israel did just that arresting terrorists in their houses, the media went berzerk over pictures of a sad looking boy having no idea why the nasty soldiers broke into his house at night for no reason.
 
Quad4_72 said:
Then of course this could all be propaganda by the Taliban. One tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan has been for insurgents to invade someones home, kill everyone inside, then shoot at Americans from the house. Once Americans return fire, the insurgents run, and then the Americans discover a whole bunch of dead civilians.
Click to expand...

evidence?
 
IDB87 said:
Obviously the Soldiers should have stormed this house (without firing a shot), arrested the militants, and put them on trial.


Or something?
Click to expand...
They could have just shot the guns out of their hands like the Lone Ranger.
 
This just in, war sucks.

They are fighting resourceful morals free people, the more we show them the tactics of hiding behind people are effective the more they are going to do it. It is a tragedy, no doubt, but unfortunately not everyone plays by the rules, and showing them that breaking the rules is effective is the last thing we would want to do.
 
In regards to the OP, did the airstrike kill any of the Taliban forces or just civilians?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom