• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Afghan delegation confirms killing 65 civilians killed by NATO during operation

Kane

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
1,671
Reaction score
264
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
So where are all these terrorists we're supposed to be fighting?

All I ever see or read about is how the Afghan and Pakistan people are outraged over civillian casualties.

Is this a real enemy, or is this about gas pipelines?

I think the war on terror is bunk.

Afghan delegation confirms killing 65 civilians killed by NATO during operation
08:26, February 28, 2011

Source: Xinhua

"The fact finding delegation of Afghan government has confirmed that NATO-led troops during operations against militants in the eastern Kunar province had killed 65 civilians including women and children, a statement released by Presidential Palace on Sunday said."

'Headed by Shahzada Masoud the advisor to president the delegation presented its report at the meeting of National Security Council with President Hamid Karzai on the chair held in Presidential Palace."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-02/27/c_13752802.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the terrorists weren't using civilians as human shields, there wouldn't be so many civilian casualties. Wanna blame someone? Blame the terrorists.
 
If the terrorists weren't using civilians as human shields, there wouldn't be so many civilian casualties. Wanna blame someone? Blame the terrorists.

It doesn't matter. Killing civilians hurts our cause. What works as an argument for some here won't like work for those who care about those killed there. And it grows the threat we face.
 
It doesn't matter. Killing civilians hurts our cause. What works as an argument for some here won't like work for those who care about those killed there. And it grows the threat we face.

During combat operations, civilians will die. When the enemy is consistantly using civilians as human shields, even more civilians are going to die. At some point, the civilians have to use some common sense and say, "if these clowns weren't hiding in my village, my village wouldn't get snake-n-naped". If they're unable to realize that reality, then their future holds more civilian deaths during operations against the enemy.
 
It doesn't matter. Killing civilians hurts our cause. What works as an argument for some here won't like work for those who care about those killed there. And it grows the threat we face.

If you were even close to right Germany and Japan would forever be our enemies, but that apposite is true. They are our Allies after we bombed their cities to rubble.

This picture is most often used as what happened to the Cities by our nukes but this is Tokyo after a B-29 raid.
bombed_out_tokyo.jpg


This is Dresden Germany after an allied bombing raid.
firebombingofdresden.gif


So I request that we stick to the facts and the truth.
 
So where are all these terrorists we're supposed to be fighting?

All I ever see or read about is how the Afghan and Pakistan people are outraged over civillian casualties.

Is this a real enemy, or is this about gas pipelines?

I think the war on terror is bunk.


Wow... the liberal mind at work, or trying to work. If you had your way during WWII we'd be speaking German. Unreal.
 
War.

What is it good for?
 
Besides making the world free from the Nazis, freeing Europe after the cold war, nothing. We need to bring back the draft. Liberals serve first.
 
Wow... the liberal mind at work, or trying to work. If you had your way during WWII we'd be speaking German. Unreal.

You do realise it was a Democrat in the white House during WW2 right... :coffeepap
 
During combat operations, civilians will die. When the enemy is consistantly using civilians as human shields, even more civilians are going to die. At some point, the civilians have to use some common sense and say, "if these clowns weren't hiding in my village, my village wouldn't get snake-n-naped". If they're unable to realize that reality, then their future holds more civilian deaths during operations against the enemy.

Or, how about you don't commit to an operation when the damage to the civlian population is more excessive than the direct military advantage gained? There's this thing called the Laws of War that separates us from the enemy quite distinctly.
 
Or, how about you don't commit to an operation when the damage to the civlian population is more excessive than the direct military advantage gained?

In that case, you've already surrendered to the bad guys.



There's this thing called the Laws of War that separates us from the enemy quite distinctly.

There are also laws that prohibit using non-combatants as human shields.
 
You do realise it was a Democrat in the white House during WW2 right... :coffeepap

Yeah, the same Democrat that ignored the situation, until he couldn't ignore it any longer and 400 thousand Americans died, as a result.
 
Yeah, the same Democrat that ignored the situation, until he couldn't ignore it any longer and 400 thousand Americans died, as a result.

In fact APDST he was reflecting the will of the people who didn't want to get involved in European affairs again since WW1 was still fresh in peoples memories AND the great depression wasn't quite over yet so people weren't really up for war at the time til pearl harbor happened :prof

But if you'd like to play the hyper-partisan game 1941 edition please feel free...
 
Or, how about you don't commit to an operation when the damage to the civlian population is more excessive than the direct military advantage gained? There's this thing called the Laws of War that separates us from the enemy quite distinctly.

Usually there is no knowledge or certainty as to whether civilians will be harmed or not as a result of the targeting of terrorists and other militants. The blame in such cases is to be placed on those who have placed them in that position, using them as human shields and using their corpses to promote their radical cause. Western forces have no interest to get civilians killed, it's not like they see civilians and think "hey let's kill those innocent bastards". They target militants. You simply cannot assure that civilians will never die when targeting Islamic terrorists.
 
During combat operations, civilians will die. When the enemy is consistantly using civilians as human shields, even more civilians are going to die. At some point, the civilians have to use some common sense and say, "if these clowns weren't hiding in my village, my village wouldn't get snake-n-naped". If they're unable to realize that reality, then their future holds more civilian deaths during operations against the enemy.

Well, the fact is it simply doesn't work that way. And we create more enemy than we kill. It has to do with us using common sense. it's why these type of invasions are so damned difficult. We didn't learn this lesson in VN, it seems, and many don't get it still today, but killing civilians too frequently simply defeats your purpose. From a partical POV, it's a bad idea.
 
If you were even close to right Germany and Japan would forever be our enemies, but that apposite is true. They are our Allies after we bombed their cities to rubble.

This picture is most often used as what happened to the Cities by our nukes but this is Tokyo after a B-29 raid.
bombed_out_tokyo.jpg


This is Dresden Germany after an allied bombing raid.
firebombingofdresden.gif


So I request that we stick to the facts and the truth.

Very different. One, there was an army to surrender. So, tey surrendered. It was largely done quickly, and decicively, and their governments surrendered, ending the war. Not the case in either Afghanistan or Iraq, making them very different situations. When making comparisons, it's often a good idea to compare things more alike than different.
 
Very different. One, there was an army to surrender. So, tey surrendered. It was largely done quickly, and decicively, and their governments surrendered, ending the war. Not the case in either Afghanistan or Iraq, making them very different situations. When making comparisons, it's often a good idea to compare things more alike than different.

Precisely, there's a very big difference between this:

0,,597125_4,00.jpg


And This:

taliban-fighters-2.jpg
 
If you paid attention you would know I disagree with Obama on this.

LOL!

why would anyone care about what you agree or disagree with

your opinions---always divorced from reputable links---are not only insignificant

they include telling grammas out a half mil contributed to soc sec to just ;)
 
LOL!

why would anyone care about what you agree or disagree with

your opinions---always divorced from reputable links---are not only insignificant

they include telling grammas out a half mil contributed to soc sec to just ;)

Why do you post here?
 
LOL!

you have to ask
 
LOL!

you have to ask

Yeah. We can all read your links without you. If you have no interest in discourse, in seeing how others think, I really don't know why you spend time here.
 
Back
Top Bottom