T Nation

25 Civilians Blasted

On the inexorable “Enduring freedom” front, Afghans seem to be really enduring more than they bargained for.

[i]"Some 25 civilians have died during aerial bombing by foreign forces in the southern Afghan province of Helmand, local residents and senior police say.

A spokesman for the Nato-led force (Isaf) said he was aware of an incident involving casualties.

President Hamid Karzai told the BBC this week that civilian deaths caused by foreign forces would have to stop.

If not, Mr Karzai warned that Afghans might turn against those countries with a military presence in Afghanistan."[/i]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6229422.stm

It seems even the puppet that is Karzai had it.

Will the madness ever stop?

From the AP. Considerably less editorial comment. More facts less spin.

25 civilians killed in Afghan violence By AMIR SHAH, Associated Press Writer

Taliban militants attacked police posts in southern Afghanistan, triggering NATO airstrikes that left 25 civilians dead, including three infants and the local mullah, a senior police officer said Friday.

NATO said its overnight bombardment killed most of a group of 30 insurgents and blamed them for the deaths of any innocents, saying they had launched “irresponsible” attacks from civilian homes.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai criticized the mounting civilian toll from NATO and U.S.-led military operations as “difficult for us to accept or understand.”

The police posts came under fire late Thursday in Gereshk district of Helmand province, Mohammad Hussein Andiwal, provincial police chief, told The Associated Press.

NATO responded by calling in airstrikes, which killed 20 suspected militants, but also 25 civilians, including nine women, three babies and the mullah at the local mosque, Andiwal said.

Taliban used at least two civilian compounds for cover during the clashes, which lasted into early Friday, Andiwal said.

“NATO was targeting the areas where the fire was coming from … and two compounds were completely destroyed, and the families living in those compounds were killed,” he said.

Villagers loaded the victims’ bodies onto tractor trailers to take them to the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, to prove they were innocent victims, but police stopped them, Andiwal said.

NATO said the aircraft struck after insurgents attacked troops from its International Security Assistance Force nine miles northeast of Gereshk town.

“A compound was assessed to have been occupied by up to 30 insurgent fighters, most of whom were killed in the engagement,” an alliance statement said.

Lt. Col. Mike Smith, a NATO spokesman, expressed concern about the reports of civilian deaths, but claimed that as insurgents had chosen the time and location for the attack, “the risk to civilians was probably deliberate.”

“It is this irresponsible action that may have led to casualties,” he said.

If confirmed, the casualties in Gereshk would bring the number of civilians killed in NATO or U.S.-led military operations this year to 177, according to an AP tally of figures provided by Afghan officials and witness report.

Some 169 civilians were killed in militant attacks this year, which have included a spate of suicide bombings.

Aid groups and other observers warn that anger at the mounting civilian toll is undermining support for the presence of foreign troops and setting back their goal of securing Karzai’s Western-backed government against a Taliban comeback.

NATO acknowledged late Thursday for the first time that civilians had died in a three-day battle that began last weekend in Chora district of Uruzgan province.

Afghan officials have said that more than 100 people, including militants, civilians and police, were killed.

“Some may have been killed at the hands of the Taliban, some may have been caught in crossfire and some may have died in airstrikes against enemy positions,” NATO spokesman Smith said.

He said it was impossible to say how many people died before NATO and Afghan forces re-established control of the area after the Taliban overran three police checkpoints.

“No matter the cause, we mourn any loss of innocent life. We are here to help provide safety and security to the people of Afghanistan, so even a single death is cause for sadness,” Smith said in a statement.

Karzai’s government has protested repeatedly at NATO’s frequent resort to massive firepower, and pleaded for closer coordination with Afghan officials to avoid civilian losses.

Karzai told the British Broadcasting Corp. in an interview Thursday that the issue of civilian deaths is “becoming difficult for us to accept or understand.”

“Every effort has to be made for it to stop … every detail has to be worked out for it in order for civilians to stop being casualties,” Karzai told the BBC.


In related news the entire Middle East erupts in outrage to the Taliban using civilian compounds as cover when staging attacks on Nato…oh wait a minute that didn’t happen!

[quote]hedo wrote:

(text)

In related news the entire Middle East erupts in outrage to the Taliban using civilian compounds as cover when staging attacks on Nato…oh wait a minute that didn’t happen![/quote]

Great post, Hedo. The Islamists continue to deliberately use civilians in their quest to not only win the war with bullets, but with propaganda…

…and Lixy remains a loyal footsoldier in that campaign.

And yes - where is the outrage at the Muslims deliberately putting Muslim civilians in harm’s way? Not a peep from the “Arab street”.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And yes - where is the outrage at the Muslims deliberately putting Muslim civilians in harm’s way? Not a peep from the “Arab street”.[/quote]

Again, I’m not sure what you want them to do. Get to an uninhabited area and wait for some F-16s to drop a few bombs on them? I don’t know if you realize that, but this isn’t exactly an army you’re dealing with. They use guerilla tactics.

I don’t know if they put the civilians at risk deliberately or not, but if they do, I agree that it should be harshly condemned. However, I take the words of NATO with a pinch of salt given that they blasted 25 innocents and maybe just looking for a way to cover up the blunder.

Also, I have a hard time following that Smith guy’s logic. I mean, if a guy was shooting at you from behind a baby, would you throw a grenade at him? It seems to me that the issue is not even discussed.

[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
And yes - where is the outrage at the Muslims deliberately putting Muslim civilians in harm’s way? Not a peep from the “Arab street”.

Again, I’m not sure what you want them to do. Get to an uninhabited area and wait for some F-16s to drop a few bombs on them? I don’t know if you realize that, but this isn’t exactly an army you’re dealing with. They use guerilla tactics.

I don’t know if they put the civilians at risk deliberately or not, but if they do, I agree that it should be harshly condemned. However, I take the words of NATO with a pinch of salt given that they blasted 25 innocents and maybe just looking for a way to cover up the blunder.

Also, I have a hard time following that Smith guy’s logic. I mean, if a guy was shooting at you from behind a baby, would you throw a grenade at him? It seems to me that the issue is not even discussed.[/quote]

Let’s use your logic then … If a group of people have ground forces pinned down because they are firing from behind a baby, inside a mosque, inside a hospital or from civilian homes are the soldiers supposed to allow themselves to be killed?

That’s what makes this all so difficult, we play as close to the rules as possible while the scum hide amongst the innocent civilian population and provoke our attacks on them in the general population.

Then again what do you expect from a group of crazies that worship a pedophile.
In other news: lixy continues cyber jihad by continuing to point out everything the western world does wrong.

Of course it is always sad when civilians die. I can assure you it was not intentional.
Of course, this is yet another strawman post. They get old…

Lixy, you justified the tactics of fighting amongst civilians in another post. Your reasoning was because they were an inferior force. Now you’re doing it again.

If you can’t strongly condemn hiding amongst civilian populations while fighting, then you have no moral authority in making this post.

If we really don’t care about civilian casualty then this war could be over…what are we waiting for? Let’s nuke those fuckers.

It seems we have a competition going on between Lixy and the rest of us to see who can post articles detailing the war atrocities of thier chosen side.

Lixy posts articles on civilian deaths, someone else posts articles on female circumcision in Islamic culture. Lixy posts on criminal acts by US Soldiers, someone posts on muslims stoning little girls to death, and on and on and on.

There is a declared and organized propaganda war being waged by the Islamic forces we are opposing around the world. They are making a concerted effort to flood U.S. discussion forums and political blogs with information depicting the current war on terror as a failure. The American people are slowly buying into this viewpoint because our government won’t point out the underlying issues in this war.

There is a reluctance on the part of the US government, military, and all of western society to call out Islam as a mostly brutal, backwards, and ignorant culture. We are not encouraging reform, or working to improve the survival odds of the few Islamic moderates with the courage to speak out.

The greatest frustration in this war is that we will continue to fail to call it a clash of cultures until it is too late. We have gone beyond of war against terror, we are fighting to free people from religious oppression.

[quote]
thunderbolt23 wrote:
And yes - where is the outrage at the Muslims deliberately putting Muslim civilians in harm’s way? Not a peep from the “Arab street”.

lixy wrote:
Again, I’m not sure what you want them to do. Get to an uninhabited area and wait for some F-16s to drop a few bombs on them? I don’t know if you realize that, but this isn’t exactly an army you’re dealing with. They use guerilla tactics.

I don’t know if they put the civilians at risk deliberately or not, but if they do, I agree that it should be harshly condemned. However, I take the words of NATO with a pinch of salt given that they blasted 25 innocents and maybe just looking for a way to cover up the blunder.

Also, I have a hard time following that Smith guy’s logic. I mean, if a guy was shooting at you from behind a baby, would you throw a grenade at him? It seems to me that the issue is not even discussed.[/quote]

So let me get this straight. Islamists hide in civilian populations and don’t wear uniforms to distinguish themselves, which is against the Geneva convention precisely because it leads directly to increased civilian casualties. And yet it is the fault of those fighting by the rules of warfare that civilian casualties then follow?

And, of course, we should be providing all the benefits of the Geneva conventions to these Islamists who don’t follow their prescriptions - that wouldn’t possibly have the effect of rewarding their continued criminal behavior…

BH6 you hit the nail on the head. It has been apparent to just about everyone.

When they target a site or forum it tends to drive away the traffic the site normally gets as well as some of the posters who find it tedious and boring. Biotest has a live and let live attitude but I’m afraid it has caused the Political forum to go to shit. Off topic is likely next then who knows.

Sadly the person who is most responsible doesn’t seem to have an interest or knowledge of training which makes it all the more silly for a site devoted to bodybuilding to put up with.

Lixy,

Why don’t you start a thread every time a suicide bomber kills 25, 50, 75 or how many ever innocent civilians? That would get pretty repetitive now wouldn’t it?

[quote]BH6 wrote:
It seems we have a competition going on between Lixy and the rest of us to see who can post articles detailing the war atrocities of thier chosen side.

Lixy posts articles on civilian deaths, someone else posts articles on female circumcision in Islamic culture. Lixy posts on criminal acts by US Soldiers, someone posts on muslims stoning little girls to death, and on and on and on.

There is a declared and organized propaganda war being waged by the Islamic forces we are opposing around the world. They are making a concerted effort to flood U.S. discussion forums and political blogs with information depicting the current war on terror as a failure. The American people are slowly buying into this viewpoint because our government won’t point out the underlying issues in this war.

There is a reluctance on the part of the US government, military, and all of western society to call out Islam as a mostly brutal, backwards, and ignorant culture. We are not encouraging reform, or working to improve the survival odds of the few Islamic moderates with the courage to speak out.

The greatest frustration in this war is that we will continue to fail to call it a clash of cultures until it is too late. We have gone beyond of war against terror, we are fighting to free people from religious oppression.
[/quote]

Hear, Hear!!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Lixy,

Why don’t you start a thread every time a suicide bomber kills 25, 50, 75 or how many ever innocent civilians? That would get pretty repetitive now wouldn’t it?

[/quote]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

The big difference, of course, being that they’re TARGETING the civilians. They aren’t “accidentally” hitting them in the course of a war against people who can fight back. They are bombing mosques, markets, restaurants, highways, food stands, and anywhere else people gather with the express aim of killing as many non-combatants as possible in order to create fear.

Despite Lixy’s ridiculous claims of moral equivalence, this makes a difference to everyone on the planet whose morality isn’t wired wrong.

They are savages of the worst kind, not “freedom fighters” or “patriots” or “resistance troops”.

[quote]BH6 wrote:
It seems we have a competition going on between Lixy and the rest of us to see who can post articles detailing the war atrocities of thier chosen side.

Lixy posts articles on civilian deaths, someone else posts articles on female circumcision in Islamic culture. Lixy posts on criminal acts by US Soldiers, someone posts on muslims stoning little girls to death, and on and on and on.

There is a declared and organized propaganda war being waged by the Islamic forces we are opposing around the world. They are making a concerted effort to flood U.S. discussion forums and political blogs with information depicting the current war on terror as a failure. The American people are slowly buying into this viewpoint because our government won’t point out the underlying issues in this war.

There is a reluctance on the part of the US government, military, and all of western society to call out Islam as a mostly brutal, backwards, and ignorant culture. We are not encouraging reform, or working to improve the survival odds of the few Islamic moderates with the courage to speak out.

The greatest frustration in this war is that we will continue to fail to call it a clash of cultures until it is too late. We have gone beyond of war against terror, we are fighting to free people from religious oppression.
[/quote]

Excellent post.

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Let’s use your logic then … If a group of people have ground forces pinned down because they are firing from behind a baby, inside a mosque, inside a hospital or from civilian homes are the soldiers supposed to allow themselves to be killed?

[/quote]

Then stop saying we are the ultimate moralists.

If you want to say we are totally moral in this war, and that the Arabs have no right to hate us, irrationally as that hatred is, I expect them to run away, or let themselves be killed.

Do I want this? No way in fucking hell.

Just stop making claims that the Arabs should be entirely grateful and not dislike us at all. That we aren’t breeding a new generation of Muslims who would have otherwise not have given two shits about the US.

I don’t want our soldiers to die, but I also admit that there hatred of us is founded on SOMETHING. Whether that hatred is rational or not, we must not be like Mr. Juliani, who believes that they randomly decided to kill some people on 9/11.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

I don’t want our soldiers to die, but I also admit that there hatred of us is founded on SOMETHING. Whether that hatred is rational or not, we must not be like Mr. Juliani, who believes that they randomly decided to kill some people on 9/11.[/quote]

Oh, it is founded on SOMETHING all right - it is founded on the same impulse that hates African Christians and animists, hatred of Buddhists (hence destruction of their culture and the statues), hatred of Jews (“apes and pigs”), hatred of anyone who dare criticize Islam (look at the streets filled with “moderate” Muslims calling for the death of Rushdie), and intertribal hatred.

With so much vileness directed outward at so many unrelated entities, why assume hatred directed at the US stems from a different impulse?

It is all one and the same - not a reaction to anything in particular, but an original, pathological action.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Then stop saying we are the ultimate moralists. [/quote]

And this needs to be addressed.

Far too often, when Westerners criticize Islamic societies for doing whatever they do, there is a response that “well, America isn’t perfect either, you know - you should recognize that”.

It is a frequent non-starter. We don’t have to think America is perfect to think that the Islamists are morally unjustified in what they do.

I think the US has tons of work to do in improving its foreign policy - that is mutually exclusive from the fact that I think US foreign policy is not to blame for Islamism.

Again, one does not have to believe America to be perfect to think that America didn’t cause the barbarians of the ME to become enemies of civlization.

Also, I have a hard time following that Smith guy’s logic. I mean, if a guy was shooting at you from behind a baby, would you throw a grenade at him? It seems to me that the issue is not even discussed.[/quote]

Only if it was a Muslim baby…

Oh, it is founded on SOMETHING all right - it is founded on the same impulse that hates African Christians and animists, hatred of Buddhists (hence destruction of their culture and the statues), hatred of Jews (“apes and pigs”), hatred of anyone who dare criticize Islam (look at the streets filled with “moderate” Muslims calling for the death of Rushdie), and intertribal hatred.

With so much vileness directed outward at so many unrelated entities, why assume hatred directed at the US stems from a different impulse?

It is all one and the same - not a reaction to anything in particular, but an original, pathological action.[/quote]

And the fact that they live like monkees rutting in the dirt, drinking their own feces and refusing to come out of the Bronze age.