US kills 47 Afghan cillians including 39 women and children

[15357]

Whether they were militants or not isn't very important. Such terrible mistakes will always happen in a conventional war. However civilians will die if we continue to protect democracy in the middle east or if we abandon them. The fight against fascism and Islamic terrorism is clearly a very nasty one but it is nessecary to prevent the Taliban ever ruling a country again. It's in our interest and the interest of the Afgani people.

What he said.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Sulkdodds needs to show that the cluster bombs were dropped in modern Iraq and not veitnam

Already provided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluste...nificant_unexploded_cluster_bomb_submunitions
http://www.handicap-international.org.uk//files/Fatal Footprint FINAL.pdf pp33

Cluster munitions were used during the Iran-
Iraq war, 1991 Gulf War, subsequent Coalition
Forces operations and the 2003 war and its
aftermath.

and also that they were intentionally designed to kill civiliians.

Pathetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluste...nificant_unexploded_cluster_bomb_submunitions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_(criminal)

While all weapons are potentially dangerous to civilians, cluster bombs pose a particular threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a wide area of effect, and they have consistently left behind a large number of unexploded bomblets. The unexploded bomblets remain dangerous for decades after the end of a conflict.

Cluster munitions are opposed by many individuals and hundreds of groups, such as the Red Cross,[3] the Cluster Munition Coalition and the United Nations, because of the high number of civilians that have fallen victim to the weapon. Since February 2005, Handicap International called for cluster munitions to be prohibited and collected hundreds of thousands of signatures to support its call.[4] 98% of 13,306 recorded cluster munitions casualties that are registered with Handicap International are civilians.

Black's Law Dictionary defines recklessness in American law as "Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence but...foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk," or alternatively as "a state of mind in which a person does not care about the consequences of his or her actions." Black's Law dictionary 1053 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 8th ed. abr. 2005). In American courts, a wrongdoer who recklessly causes harm can be held to the same liability as a person who intentionally does so.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Cluster bombs aren't designed to kill civilians. However they are not the type of munitions that should be used in areas with civilians due to the way bomblets disperse. Basically it's carpet bombing with smaller bombs.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

While they may not have been designed with civilians in mind, they are designed to kill people and civilians are people.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

and it wont be the last.

I remember our debate concerning that video -- I'd have to say my comment now has got to be the same then. There's not enough information about it ... and that's whats pissing me off about our government.

Are you joking?

Did I lol?

 

[Saturos]

Whether they were militants or not isn't very important. Such terrible mistakes will always happen in a conventional war. However civilians will die if we continue to protect democracy in the middle east or if we abandon them. The fight against fascism and Islamic terrorism is clearly a very nasty one but it is nessecary to prevent the Taliban ever ruling a country again. It's in our interest and the interest of the Afgani people.

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Solaris, but he's right. If we just up and leave right now, Talibani militants will just undo everything we've worked for up to this point.

There's no way around it. Civilian casualties is guaranteed. War is hell. Plain and simple. Period.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Did I lol?

Until you post anything remotely serious - perhaps something resembling a counter-argument - I'll continue to assume you consider the murder of civilians a joke.

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Solaris, but he's right. If we just up and leave right now, Talibani militants will just undo everything we've worked for up to this point.

There's no way around it. Civilian casualties is guaranteed. War is hell. Plain and simple. Period.

Moral Cowardice Man strikes again, together with his trusy sidekicks, Straw Man and Bad Excuses Boy.

I'm not sure anyone in this thread was actually suggesting "pulling out", and god forbid anyone ask you to abandon the mission, but perhaps you could consider just a teensy tiny bit fewer war crimes? And you'd best not talk about fears that militants "undo everything we've worked for". "What we've worked for" is very different to what we've done, and I don't think the militants would be capable of reconstructing public services, making the middle east more peaceful, freeing the country and resurrecting all the casualties.

As for "war is hell", but sorry, no. We don't get to escape the blame for what we've done just because we declared ourselves into a magical special state where we can do anything we want because that's just what happens. Blanket statements and 'war is bad' platitudes don't make up for a disregard for life so systematic and so willful that it amounts to manslaughter if not (via the doctrine of transferred malice) to murder. And if war is so very, so unavoidably bad, it follows that nobody should enter into a war unless they know it's absolutely worth it. We entered into this war with a careless, triumphant incompetence, and with greed, lies and fantasy as our only motives.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Until you post anything remotely serious - perhaps something resembling a counter-argument - I'll continue to assume you consider the murder of civilians a joke.

Sulkdodds, I already did post something remotely serious.

I don't believe our Government intentionally killed around 80-100 civilians on purpose.
With that stated, there's not enough information about this incident that would allow someone to take it either way. Haditha, that was obvious. This? I'm not so sure -- just because that would almost require a pilot to indiscriminately bomb every house he came across, that, or just to target whoever he felt like shooting at.

Someone has to know these details and I'm not deciding anything just yet; oh, and the civilians that did die? I don't have to dance to prove I feel bad for those who suffer in unjust wars or missed chances.

 

[Saturos]

Until you post anything remotely serious - perhaps something resembling a counter-argument - I'll continue to assume you consider the murder of civilians a joke.Moral Cowardice Man strikes again, together with his trusy sidekicks, Straw Man and Bad Excuses Boy.

I'm not sure anyone in this thread was actually suggesting "pulling out", and god forbid anyone ask you to abandon the mission, but perhaps you could consider just a teensy tiny bit fewer war crimes? And you'd best not talk about fears that militants "undo everything we've worked for". "What we've worked for" is very different to what we've done, and I don't think the militants would be capable of reconstructing public services, making the middle east more peaceful, freeing the country and resurrecting all the casualties.

As for "war is hell", but sorry, no. We don't get to escape the blame for what we've done just because we declared ourselves into a magical special state where we can do anything we want because that's just what happens. Blanket statements and 'war is bad' platitudes don't make up for a disregard for life so systematic and so willful that it amounts to manslaughter if not (via the doctrine of transferred malice) to murder. And if war is so very, so unavoidably bad, it follows that nobody should enter into a war unless they know it's absolutely worth it. We entered into this war with a careless, triumphant incompetence, and with greed, lies and fantasy as our only motives.

So are you saying we should have just ignored what those insurgent bastards done to our buildings during 9/11, not to mention all those civilians that were killed? How can you be so sympathetic to many of those who hated us, yet be so apathetic to what the insurgents have done to all those civilians? Sure many Iraqis were badly mistreated during Saddam's reign, and many are grateful for what we have done for them. At the same time, don't forget that we are dealing with an extremely militant race that have been warring for thousands of years. There's no telling how many troops were shot in the back because they underestimated some 9-year olds whom they though were harmless. So I ask you, what are we supposed to do?

Granted of course, Bush and Donald Rumsfeld was a joke when it came to military strategy. Idiots even. Rumsfeld was not qualified for his position at all tbh as he had no former military experience. Things could have gone alot better if an actual "commander-in-chief" was elected and a SoD that was worth his salt. But also don't forget that casualties are unavoidable either way. Both civilian and military. We must not forget the sacrifices they have made. Regardless of the decisions made in Washington and London. To become "apathetic" is to lose the war.

Of course too there are such things as war crimes. I agree. But it also because of this whole policing thing that's getting so many U.S. and U.K. Troops killed. If we just imprison them all for the duration of the conflict (or at least inact a strict curfew) there might be less casualties. This is not cruelty, but for the safety for both iraqi civilians and the troops. The same thing was done to the Japanese during WWII on all U.S./allied territory too. But I'm sure you'll just complain about that too, as there's no winning with you people. Or at least "agreeing to disagree".


About the greed thing. I couldn't agree with you more there too. There are many politicians and corporations aiming to line their own pockets while civilians on the home front have to tighten their belts even more. On the contrary, consider also the cost of the war effort and the damage it has done to the economy on our side. What were they supposed to do? Although I doubt any profit gained will be used wisely, as the U.S. trade deficit climbs even higher.

together with his trusy sidekicks, Straw Man and Bad Excuses Boy.

BTW, you spelt "trusty" wrong Captain Grammar.

*I love doing that to Sulk* P.S. It seems to me your losing our little grammar "duel".

 

[mastag]

P.S. It seems to me your losing our little grammar "duel".

Oh me.

Anyway, I didn't see anything that leads me to believe that Sulk was implying that we shouldn't find, capture, and charge the perpetrators of 9/11. To me, it just sounded like he was outraged at the killing of civilians, which one would think everybody would be. That said, there has always been and will always be collateral damage in wars. However, measures should be taken to vastly lessen the chances of innocents coming in harm's way.

 

[lefty]

I may be a grammar nazi, but it's better than being a grammar jew.

 

[Krynn72]

lol because there arnt any grammar jews left.

So are you saying we should have just ignored what those insurgent bastards done to our buildings during 9/11, not to mention all those civilians that were killed?

First off, if you're concerned about what they "done" to our buildings at all, then you're an idiot. And secondly, I hope you understand that you're promoting the committal of war crimes and the murder of civilians as a legitimate response for suicide bombers killing other citizens.

Which makes you an idiot.


Then you go on to say that we should imprison all Afghans for their own good. I just cant ****ing believe you. You're absolutely insane, and a complete moron. I'm putting you on ignore, because I get so god damn angry every time you say shit like this.

 

[God]

You know, its all well and good arguing, but the fact is, i caused this.
and i regret it. stupid bar games.
anyway, point is, when they get here there bloody annoying. they beat up shakespear, they made jesus cry and they keep starting fights with each others limbs. believe me, you can have them back.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Curse you, God. A curse upon you and all your angels.

I don't believe our Government intentionally killed around 80-100 civilians on purpose.
With that stated, there's not enough information about this incident that would allow someone to take it either way. Haditha, that was obvious. This? I'm not so sure -- just because that would almost require a pilot to indiscriminately bomb every house he came across, that, or just to target whoever he felt like shooting at..

You keep going "there's not enough information blahblahblah" yet if you read the story you'll find that a professional commission set up by the President of Aghanistan has itself made an investigation and concluded that 47 civilians were killed and that 9 were injured. Accordingly, they have demanded a trial. The Americans say:

"We never target non-combatants. We do go to great length to avoid civilian casualties."

Yet that doesn't mean that civilian casualties don't happen, and in any case, I have already demonstrated that this statement is not true. The Coalition has, in the past, knowingly targeted civilians.

I've said my piece, and have no desire to keep hectoring you. I merely feel that your stance - loudly insisting that there isn't really any reason to swing either way - is more the result of prejudice than anything else; I fear you protest too much.

snip

I'm not sure what's going on with the Captain Grammar stuff; I'm not usually too big on correcting people's spelling and grammar and suchlike. Stupidity irritates me more than poor typesmanship. And frankly, the paucity of your arguments overshadows any possible criticism of your presentation.

In case you missed that, I don't give a shit.

Your rant on 9/11 is misplaced. Saddam was not responsible for the WTC attacks, and neither were the Iraqi people (who are now suffering). Contrary to what Fox News might have told you, 'The Insurgency' is not a united global conspiracy in which every militant Arab is united. Al-Quaeda, as many people understand the term, may well be a fiction. So there aren't really any proven links between the 9/11 attacks and the people who are now being killed in Afghanistan and Iraq; what US forces in Iraq are now fighting is an insurgency that has risen as a direct result of the occupation.

In any case, the crimes of Insurgents are not relevant here. The misdeeds of Iraqi militias and anti-Coalition terrorist organisations are not being discussed. Nor do I care to tell you what I think we are "supposed" to do. I am only criticising the conduct of the Coalition in Iraq, much of which has been morally disgusting or incompetent-to-negligent.

You seem to believe this is some kind of dialectic, black-or-white issue - which is idiotic, and simply goes to show how successfully the architects of US foreign policy have been able to define the terms of the debate. We're in a war which we've got to win, and it's us or them, and if I'm not with the troops I'm against them! Is that how you think it works? If there is a "war", we created it, by applying the ideas of conventional warfare to the realities of occupation, subversion, and cultural movement.

And are you seriously suggesting that the Arab "race" is somehow fundamentally more warlike than, say, caucasians? That's a moronic claim.

PS: Yeah for the record I would complain about imprisoning the entire population of a country which we are supposedly attempting to "liberate" from oppression. It also wouldn't work. Such measures are impractical (observe this map, and consider that red means 'under the control of Sunni insurgents') and your proposing them betrays how little you understand about this issue and, perhaps, the world generally. "For the duration of the conflict"? When's the conflict over, then? When all the Iraqis are either dead or eating Freedom Fries? "Our mission is to save the Iraqis, so we'd better lock them all up".

I will withold my opinion on exactly how we should handle the whole mess now, but I will say that I do not believe that Iraq can get any better for our staying there. The effect we have had so far has been simply awful. If good things have been achieved in Iraq, they are in spite of, not instead of, what we have done.

To even utter the phrases "war is hell" or "civilian casualties are unavoidable" is to tacitly legitimise the repeated and willful slaughter that we have continued to inflict upon the country of Iraq. The fact that insurgents also commit atrocities does not excuse our own. Your position in this argument is like the man in a jury at a rape trial, who, when the jurors retire to consider their verdict, claims loudly that "she was asking for it", and then wonders why everybody is glaring at him. This being so, I can only advise that you do what he should do: sit down, shut up.

 

[Mr Stabby]

How did Afghanistan turn into Iraq

 

[Krynn72]

How did Afghanistan turn into Iraq

Saturos thinks they're the same place and same people.

 

[Saturos]

First off, if you're concerned about what they "done" to our buildings at all, then you're an idiot. And secondly, I hope you understand that you're promoting the committal of war crimes and the murder of civilians as a legitimate response for suicide bombers killing other citizens.

Which makes you an idiot.


Then you go on to say that we should imprison all Afghans for their own good. I just cant ****ing believe you. You're absolutely insane, and a complete moron. I'm putting you on ignore, because I get so god damn angry every time you say shit like this.

Saturos thinks they're the same place and same people.

Your a rude, whiney bitch.

Futhermore, I never promoted the slaughter of innocent civilians, I just asked Sulkdodds what he thinks they should do about it is all.

Your inability to read does not earn me an incorrect label. Or do you prefer me to be more blunt?


To everyone else- Basically sums up all my feeling from what I know so far about the entire conflict. Not just the crap that's been happening to the Afghan civilians (and hence just this thread).

Also, I really don't care what you people think about me anymore. I got what I needed here long ago, so It's your problem if you choose not to like me.

P.S. I'm insane bacause almost everybody else here to me seems insane.

 

[Laivasse]

Well if my arguments are bad it's because I'm just so ker-RAYZEEEH!

I can't add anything to what Sulkdodds has already said. When foreign policy is prosecuted with such reckless disregard for civilian casualties, all the hot air about the underlying moral imperatives for our presence in these countries becomes meaningless if it wasn't already, particularly in the case of Iraq.

 

[VirusType2]

Your little sister goes to play in the field and blows herself up with a bomb. A week later, your little brother blows himself up stepping on a bomblet as well.

Your farm riddled with bombs. Your entire lively hood is ruined. You will never be able to farm on your land again. Your livestock has all been blown up by stepping on cluster bombs. You have no way to grow food.


I'm starting to think maybe Saturos has a point about securing these civilians temporarily, and use mine destroyer trucks to clear their farms and fields. Only if they came willingly however.

Though Sulkdodds said it best. Don't use the cluster bombs in the first place!

 

[Sparta]

How did Afghanistan turn into Iraq

Same way it turned into the shithole it is now back in the 80's. We fought off the other side and then left after barely doing anything to help the populace again. The U.S. has a habit of bombing countries into the stone age and doing as little as possible to help them re-establish their infrastructure (which they may have helped destroy in the first place anyway).

If the U.S. stuck around in Afghanistan in the 80's and actually helped them get back on their feet by helping to rebuild alot of their infrastructure, as well as helping to disarm and dismantle the remaining Soviet weapons supply (as well as the weapons supply that U.S. was practically giving away to the populace to fight commies) then Afghanistan wouldn't have attracted so many fundamentalist nutjobs looking to get their hands on weapons.

As for the U.S. killing civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, the rules of engagement are so completely ****ed up thats it's atrocious anyone could authorize targetting civilians as acceptable warfare.

 

[Saturos]

The miracle of the internets combined with freedom of the press has uncovered the many horrors of war. Many good people die. Many bad people die. Whether accidentally or purposely. Those that do go against regulations are probably court marshalled.

The reality is too much to bear for many of you. That's why I'll excuse any flaming towards me. (Except for Krynn. He pushed me too far over the edge.)

While I'm at it, if anybody don't like my ideas in the future, just refrain from flaming altogether and just mention an alternative solution that can be discussed.
It's the more civilized and proper thing to do. Internets or not. I only flame when others flame me, and I expect the same respect in return. I can post a thread and name a whole laundry list of things I think are absolutely insane that many of you believe and call you all idiots too, but I won't however because I'm much more reserved and respectful. It does not make you look or smarter, despite what those who are guilty probably think. It does in fact, show a lack of intelligence.

EDIT> IF cluster bombs are used, then indeed our forces should make sure the way is clear post-conflict to avoid (or at least lessen) collateral damage.
They still have uses though and should not be de-commissioned entirely.

I don't like violence or the killing of innocents. That said, there are probably a few rogue operatives that go against regulations at the risk of a court marshall. It is a shameful bad reflection on our country's military as a whole and shows a lack of professionalism. I DO NOT PROMOTE THE SHAMELESS KILLING OF UNARMED CIVILIANS.

 

[mastag]

Frankly, I'm shocked nobody has posted a conspiracy theory in this thread yet. This thread has just about everything else...

 

[Eejit]

Oh, in that case the civilians were most likely Illuminati. The attack was ordered by the Stonemasons.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

EDIT> IF cluster bombs are used, then indeed our forces should make sure the way is clear post-conflict to avoid (or at least lessen) collateral damage.
They still have uses though and should not be de-commissioned entirely.
.

The big problem with Cluster bombs is that not all the clusters explode and stay live in the ground for many decades after combat. So many innocent people have lost their lives due to unexploded clusters and that's one of the main reason they are being de-commissioned and rightly so.

 

[Saturos]

The big problem with Cluster bombs is that not all the clusters explode and stay live in the ground for many decades after combat. So many innocent people have lost their lives due to unexploded clusters and that's one of the main reason they are being de-commissioned and rightly so.

Precision warheads wouldn't be very effective during the zombie apocalypse. You'll wish we still had cluster bombs then.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

Nah, good ole naplam will wipe them out.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yet that doesn't mean that civilian casualties don't happen, and in any case, I have already demonstrated that this statement is not true. The Coalition has, in the past, knowingly targeted civilians.

I've said my piece, and have no desire to keep hectoring you. I merely feel that your stance - loudly insisting that there isn't really any reason to swing either way - is more the result of prejudice than anything else; I fear you protest too much.

You've demonstrated with one video that could've easily been cut, such as the Iraq Farm video Footage that CNN edited to make it look like our soldiers where attacking farmers (where before the pilot gets any confirmation to engage the targets, the "farmers" are seen tilling their field with Kalishnikov's and RPG's).

As for your rhetoric that I protest too much? I disagree. Questions might go unanswered but at least it demonstrates that people are trying to investigate all of the details concerning an incident like this. People make two mistakes in a war like this: First to trust their government. Second to trust who their government is fighting. This is a Guerilla War with the strategical emphasis on deception; this statement counts for both parties, and the only way to weed out the lies is to directly question all of their aspects whether critically or casually.

 

[Sulkdodds]

As with the last time we had a big argument, you seem to be becoming somewhat confused (I recall that then, as now, you accused me of "rhetoric", to which I can only answer: "...okay?").

When I talk of what "I've demonstrated", I am not referring to any videos or anything to do with CNN. I'm talking about that long-ass post I made just back there. You know, the one with all the statistics and sources? You remember that?

It's all very fine to talk about the necessity to interrogate the evidence, but the fact remains that an independent judicial commission has demanded that there be a trial because their investigation has concluded that civilians died. The only person contradicting them is a (trustworthy!) military spokesperson, whose claims are already called into question by the use of cluster munitions alone. But I suppose your armchair protestations are obviously more reliable, and closer to the facts, than the endeavors of professionals on the ground. After all, you don't believe it. So you're "not deciding anything just yet" - not even deciding that a trial should go ahead.

BTW/FYI:

Haditha, that was obvious. This? I'm not so sure -- just because that would almost require a pilot to indiscriminately bomb every house he came across, that, or just to target whoever he felt like shooting at.

No. You aren't reading. The article indicates that the military was fed intelligence and acted on it (which is why it's being asked that both the informants and the executors are tried). The pilot either couldn't or didn't check who was actually in the building he blew up. There may have been an honest mistake here, but even if there was, it seems that the Americans did not admit it but rather decided to lie about it. Gee, guess maybe your "I'm not so sure" isn't worth shit after all.

This is true lunacy! Have a grreat day!

 

[Sulkdodds]

By the way, I find it amusing that here you cite Haditha as an example of a rock-solid civilian massacre. Because, at the time you said something that will sound very familiar to readers of this thread:

Despite claims of videos for the massacre, no one that I know here has ever really seen it. And, without knowing in full the stories of the people who were killed, and the Insurgents involved, it will never be likely known the truth of this operation.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

As with the last time we had a big argument, you seem to be becoming somewhat confused (I recall that then, as now, you accused me of "rhetoric", to which I can only answer: "...okay?").

It's alright to admit to rhetoric, Sulk.

By the way, I find it amusing that here you cite Haditha as an example of a rock-solid civilian massacre. Because, at the time you said something that will sound very familiar to readers of this thread:

Because as I've stated, situations should be critically reviewed and not blindly accepted just because it makes whatever perception we see the world in morally or politically convenient. I asked questions then like I asked questions now -- you seem to be confused as to why I even ask questions.

It'd benefit you to try, Sulk.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I repeat that all I am "accepting" is that a trial is needed. That would really be 'asking questions' and 'establishing truth', yet judging by the way you keep loudly repeating "I GUESS WE'LL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH" (even while investigation is ongoing) you're against even that. I hasten to repeat that your disputes against the commission's findings have been, so far, entirely disconnected from the real world.

I see no point in saying any more when you continue to indulge in the behaviour for which you are cemented in my memory - smug misdirection, willful confusion, selective reading and entirely ignoring vast swathes of argument. Have fun with that.

 

[CptStern]

reminds me of ...



FBI man 1: Tell you what, Mr. Simpson, from now on your name is Homer Thompson, at Terror Lake. Let's just practice a bit, hmmmm? So when I say hello Mr. Thompson, you say hi.

Homer: Check!

FBI man 1: Hello, Mr. Thompson.

[Homer stares blankly]


FBI man 1: Now, remember, your name is Homer Thompson.

Homer: I gotcha!


FBI man 1: Hello, Mr. Thompson.

[again Homer stares blankly]

FBI man 1: [FBI men stare at each other]

[hours pass by]

FBI man 1: [frustrated] Argh... Now when I say "Hello Mr. Thompson" and press down on your foot, you smile and nod.

Homer: No problem.

[stepping hard on Homer's foot]
FBI man 1: Hello, Mr. Thompson.

[Homer stares blankly again for a few seconds]

Homer: [whispering to the FBI man next to him] I think he's talking to you.

[FBI man gives up]

 

[alpha incipiens]

It's alright to admit to rhetoric, Sulk.

I am not entirely certain that you know what this word means, sir.

 

[CptStern]

you're doing it wrong


"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

 

[alpha incipiens]

I wasn't trying to quote that movie, though. That quote is entirely overused. D:

 

[CptStern]

Inconceivable!!!!

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I repeat that all I am "accepting" is that a trial is needed.

You don't get a trial! /end Haditha

I am not entirely certain that you know what this word means, sir.

How can you tell?