quote:

US troops kill Afghan civilians Local people accused the US soldiers of targeting civilians An incident described by US forces in Afghanistan as a "complex ambush" has left at least eight civilians dead. The incident occurred on the road from the eastern city of Jalalabad to Pakistan when a suicide bomber targeted a convoy, sparking a fire fight. US officials initially said 16 people had been killed. They did not explain the lower, revised death toll. Thousands of local people took to the streets, accusing the Americans of deliberately firing on the civilians. Separately, Nato said two British soldiers had been killed in fighting in southern Afghanistan. Spring offensive The US military said a minibus containing explosives was driven at the convoy, injuring one soldier. US troops were then attacked from several directions and returned fire in defence of the patrol. The [US troops] opened fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot Tur Gul, injured civilian UK soldiers killed Thousands of people gathered to demonstrate against the shooting, shouting "Death to America, Death to Karzai", referring to the Afghan president, and blaming the US patrol for shooting passers-by. US military spokesman Maj William Mitchell said: "We certainly believe it's possible that the incoming fire from the ambush was wholly or partly responsible for the civilian casualties." However, Mohammad Khan Katawazi, chief of Shinwar district, said the US troops treated everyone as a potential attacker even if they had no evidence. One injured civilian, Tur Gul, told the Associated Press news agency: "They opened fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot." "When we parked our vehicle, when they passed us, they opened fire on our vehicle," said Mohammad Ishaq, 15, who was also hit by bullets. The BBC's Alastair Leithead in Kabul says there has been a huge increase in the number of suicide attacks over the past 12 months, but a coordinated ambush is relatively rare. He says there have also been other demonstrations in the same province, Nangarhar, recently, mainly at opium poppy eradication by government officials. The two British servicemen killed in southern Afghanistan died in the Sangin area of Helmand province on Saturday. Twenty foreign soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year. Nato fears that Taleban violence will escalate in several areas of Afghanistan as the winter snows thaw. Nato commanders have said they need more soldiers to tackle the expected spring offensive. Last Tuesday at least nine people were killed in a suicide bombing at the main US base in Afghanistan, Bagram near Kabul, during a visit by US Vice-President Dick Cheney.

US troops kill Afghan civilians

It gets worse:

quote:

U.S. Soldiers Threaten Journos, Delete Images in Afghanistan Published: March 04, 2007 1:20 PM ET updated 6:00 PM KABUL Afghan journalists -- some working for the Associated Press -- covering the aftermath of a suicide bomb attack and shooting in eastern Afghanistan Sunday said U.S. troops deleted their photos and video and warned them not to publish or air any images of U.S. troops or a car where three Afghans were shot to death. Afghan witnesses and gunshot victims said U.S. forces fired on civilians in cars and on foot along at least a six-mile stretch of road in Nangarhar province following a suicide attack against the Marine convoy. The U.S. military said militants also fired on American forces during the attack. The U.S. military and Afghan officials said eight Afghans died and 34 were wounded in the violence. One Marine was also injured. A freelance photographer working for The Associated Press and a cameraman working for AP Television News said a U.S. soldier deleted their photos and video showing a four-wheel drive vehicle in which three people were shot to death about 100 yards from the suicide bombing. The AP plans to lodge a protest with the American military. When I went near the four-wheel drive, I saw the Americans taking pictures of the same car, so I started taking pictures," Gul said. "Two soldiers with a translator came and said, 'Why are you taking pictures? You don't have permission.'" It wasn't clear why the accredited journalists would need permission to take photos of a civilian car on a public highway. Gul said the U.S. troops took his camera, deleted his photos and returned it to him. The journalists came across another American, showed their identification cards, and he agreed that they could take pictures. A Western military official who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to release the information said the troops were Marine Special Operations Forces, the Marine Corps component created in February 2006 of the U.S. Special Operations Command. "The same soldier who took my camera came again and deleted my photos," Gul said. "The soldier was very angry ... I told him, 'They gave us permission,' but he didn't listen." Gul's new photos were also deleted, and the American, speaking through a translator, warned him that he did not want to see any AP photos published anywhere. The American also raised his fist in anger as if he were going to hit him, but he did not strike, Gul said. Lt. Col. David Accetta, a U.S. military spokesman, said he did not have any confirmed reports that coalition forces "have been involved in confiscating cameras or deleting images." Khanwali Kamran, a reporter for the Afghan channel Ariana Television, was in a small group of journalists working alongside Gul. Kamran said the American soldiers also deleted his footage. "They warned me that if it is aired ... then, 'You will face problems,'" Kamran said. Taqiullah Taqi, a reporter for Afghanistan's largest television station, Tolo TV, said Americans were using abusive language. "According to the translator, they said, 'Delete them, or we will delete you,'" Taqi said. A freelance cameraman for AP Television News said that about 100 yards from the bomb site, a U.S. officer told him that he could not go any closer to the scene but that he could shoot footage. The cameraman asked not to be named for his own safety. "Then I started filming the suicide attack site, where there was a body and U.S. soldiers, and farther away, there was a four-wheel drive vehicle in which three people were shot to death," he said. As he was filming, he said, a U.S. soldier and translator "ordered us not to move." The cameraman said they were very angry and deleted any footage that included the Americans, as well as part of an interview from a demonstration. Hundreds of Afghans had gathered to protest the violence. Reporters Without Borders condemned the actions of the U.S. forces, saying they dealt with the press poorly. "Why did the soldiers do it if they don't have anything to hide? The situation is very tense in Afghanistan, and the media should be able to report about it freely and safely," said Jean-Francois Julliard, a spokesman for the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders. http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp...003553574&imw=Y

Ahh yes, we're really instilling that good ol' "democracy" thingy all over the world, ain't we? Ain't it swell?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium [COLOR=FF7F50] Here's what undermines American and NATO campaign in Afghanistan, and this is not the first nor the second or third time I read something like this:

I have a solution.

I've sent the Taliban a memo requesting that they meet NatO in a field outside of town with muskets, and that they fight like it's 1650.

And remember to wear british red so the blood doesn't show

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I have a solution. I've sent the Taliban a memo requesting that they meet NatO in a field outside of town with muskets, and that they fight like it's 1650. And remember to wear british red so the blood doesn't show

Good point. I like it. I think we could either do that, or go to the other side of the extreme:

Wipe out ALL civilians in Afghanistan. Fuck em. Why bother trying to decifer who's a terrorist anymore? Just blowtorch them all, one by one, town by town. And when it's all said and done, tactical nuke them.

Trust me, they'll thank us later.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Trust me, they'll thank us later.

The question of what is a "good" war is a topic of interest. I think that most people would pick up arms to defend their country.

Assuming the Taliban are not involved with terrorism, is their treatment of girls/women alone not justification enough for war?

It is for me.

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

quote:

Originally posted by Subey The question of what is a "good" war is a topic of interest. I think that most people would pick up arms to defend their country. Assuming the Taliban are not involved with terrorism, is their treatment of girls/women alone not justification enough for war? It is for me.

The same could be said for a great many countries. Darfur comes immediately to mind. But there's plenty of other countries and ruthless dictators that deserve closer scrutiny, rather than a mere look-the-other-way attitude that this Administration is creating with a healthy handful of other countries. The bedfellows being created all in the name of War on Terra are quite strange, indeed.

By that logic, how many other countries shall we be invading and forcing "democracy" down their throats? Because if humanitarianism and lack of democracy and liberty are your rationales, our military will be quite busy indeed for many decades to come. Is that truly what you are arguing?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The same could be said for a great many countries. Darfur comes immediately to mind. But there's plenty of other countries and ruthless dictators that deserve closer scrutiny, rather than a mere look-the-other-way attitude that this Administration is creating with a healthy handful of other countries. The bedfellows being created all in the name of War on Terra are quite strange, indeed. By that logic, how many other countries shall we be invading and forcing "democracy" down their throats? Because if humanitarianism and lack of democracy and liberty are your rationales, our military will be quite busy indeed for many decades to come. Is that truly what you are arguing?

I think the unwritten rules of conduct that the nation state applies to intervention are antiquated yes.

There are of course various situations, and circumstances and whatnot. So in order to avoid discussing the "milder" end of the spectrum, I will limit myself to the "worse" end.

In those cases the only reason that I can conceive of for not intervening is because it hurts local history to have external intervention rather than internal. By this I offer the example of Nelson Mandela.


To clarify then, my position is that in principle I support intervention on these grounds. And my own death would be as acceptable as if I was storming Juno beach. To not want to help seems alien to me. However this support is not "naive" in that it is contingent on improving the quality of life of those affected, as that would be the whole point.

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero

quote:

Originally posted by Subey I think the unwritten rules of conduct that the nation state applies to intervention are antiquated yes. There are of course various situations, and circumstances and whatnot. So in order to avoid discussing the "milder" end of the spectrum, I will limit myself to the "worse" end. In those cases the only reason that I can conceive of for not intervening is because it hurts local history to have external intervention rather than internal. By this I offer the example of Nelson Mandela. To clarify then, my position is that in principle I support intervention on these grounds. And my own death would be as acceptable as if I was storming Juno beach. To not want to help seems alien to me. However this support is not "naive" in that it is contingent on improving the quality of life of those affected, as that would be the whole point.

Fair enough. Now realistically, is this philosophy that you give achievable, or is it still a bit too idealistic? Furthermore, do you advocate such a philosophy is similar or the same to that which is the neoconservative imperialistic philosophy that's currently running our Administration today? I want to make sure if there's a distinction or not to what you are advocating versus what runs our current Executive branch.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Fair enough. Now realistically, is this philosophy that you give achievable, or is it still a bit too idealistic? Furthermore, do you advocate such a philosophy is similar or the same to that which is the neoconservative imperialistic philosophy that's currently running our Administration today? I want to make sure if there's a distinction or not to what you are advocating versus what runs our current Executive branch.

I'm mostly ignorant of what is ascribed to the 'neocon' philosophy. The spread of democracy isn't a direct concern per se, especially in regards to safeguarding anyones assets (I'm interested in uplifting quality of life).

The two things that I do really like about democracy are that it protects dissent (i.e. opposition parties) and it allows for course corrections with a minimal amount of fuss (i.e. elections). These two things together make it superior to most other forms of government.

So I support its spread for those reasons. I don't think anyone would associate the The African Union's desire to spread democracy as a neocon initiative.

But that's ancillary to what interests me.



The gap between something working on paper and working on the ground can be large. I see it as "UN peace keepers + 1 step of evolution" rather than "UN peace keepers + war". Is that realistic? I dunno, but I'd rather lean towards the ideal than lean towards the real.

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero