• 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

apdst said:
During combat operations, civilians will die.
Click to expand...
civilian casualties are unfortunately always going to be a reality of war.

do you believe the civilian casualties would be as high if the military planners and the political elite put the same value upon Afghan civilian lives as they would if it were american lives?

or do you actually believe they place the same value on their lives?
 
Serenity said:
civilian casualties are unfortunately always going to be a reality of war.

do you believe the civilian casualties would be as high if the military planners and the political elite put the same value upon Afghan civilian lives as they would if it were american lives?

or do you actually believe they place the same value on their lives?
Click to expand...

I believe that civilians casualties wouldn't be as high, if the terrorists weren't using them as human shields. The objective is to kill the enemy. If they're using civilians as cover and a high civilian body count results, then there's not much we can do about that.
 
apdst said:
I believe that civilians casualties wouldn't be as high, if the terrorists weren't using them as human shields. The objective is to kill the enemy. If they're using civilians as cover and a high civilian body count results, then there's not much we can do about that.
Click to expand...

You do realise that the more civillians you kill, the more insurgents you create...

You destroy a house to kill an insurgent, you kill not only the insurgent, but also a mother and her child while the father was out working...

And let me tell you something apdst, there is nothing more dangerous in this world then a man with nothing to lose.

Now that's just an example, but villages in the middle east and afghanistan are very closely knit communities, everyone knows eachother, even collateral damage enrages the local population and makes them more likely to support your enemy.

It's all a very difficult balancing act, and not JUST about avoiding civillian casulties to "look good".

These people don't have much, and therefore it doesn't take much for them to pick up a gun and fight you.

But your one dimensional "well this is how we did it in world war 2" approach could work I guess... if you were fighting in WW2 :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Actually I have already explained. And no, we actually knew the wmds were not a real concern.
Click to expand...

Bull****.

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0 - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)


Everyone believed he had WMD's, Hussein bluffed the world with it.


Drinking the koolaid doesn't make the argument valid.
Click to expand...



Disagreeing with any of your numerous asinine positions does not make one a kool aid drinker. :shrug:



And we don't have heaven in either country now, which still have corruption and torture. So, the betterment has been not only mild with no future certainty, but expensive. When the worst of it was happening, we did nothing. We waited until it was mostly over, and then added injury to injury. Not something anyone would thank us for, or that we should feel too good about.
Click to expand...

The worst of it happened under Clinton, no? Who put in a policy of "regieme change" but did little else. What's your point?


So, no, as realted to purpose, we create more than we kill when we kill civilians.
Click to expand...


I haven't denied that, What I have stated is I think the ammount is overstated. I think its something like .003 per 1000 per civillian killed.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Bull****.

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0 - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)


Everyone believed he had WMD's, Hussein bluffed the world with it.
Click to expand...

That's funny, you use a source that uses deception to defend deception. That's funny stuff. :lamo :lamo :lamo




The worst of it happened under Clinton, no? Who put in a policy of "regieme change" but did little else. What's your point?
Click to expand...

He did not bring war to those poor people, displacing millions, killing about 100,000, and helping Iran out in the region.




I haven't denied that, What I have stated is I think the ammount is overstated. I think its something like .003 per 1000 per civillian killed.
Click to expand...

I don't know of anyone who's quantified it, but I'd be interested in how you reeached your numbers.
Click to expand...
 
Jetboogieman said:
You do realise that the more civillians you kill, the more insurgents you create...

You destroy a house to kill an insurgent, you kill not only the insurgent, but also a mother and her child while the father was out working...

And let me tell you something apdst, there is nothing more dangerous in this world then a man with nothing to lose.

Now that's just an example, but villages in the middle east and afghanistan are very closely knit communities, everyone knows eachother, even collateral damage enrages the local population and makes them more likely to support your enemy.

It's all a very difficult balancing act, and not JUST about avoiding civillian casulties to "look good".

These people don't have much, and therefore it doesn't take much for them to pick up a gun and fight you.

But your one dimensional "well this is how we did it in world war 2" approach could work I guess... if you were fighting in WW2 :coffeepap
Click to expand...

If they're lending sanctuary to terrorists, then they're already sympathetic to their cause. At the end of the day, what difference is it going to make?

The only other option is to admit defeat and let the terrorists do what they want. Is that what you would have us do?
 
apdst said:
If they're lending sanctuary to terrorists, then they're already sympathetic to their cause. At the end of the day, what difference is it going to make?

The only other option is to admit defeat and let the terrorists do what they want. Is that what you would have us do?
Click to expand...

I love the fact I present an entire argument, and you'll only address one ****ing sentence.

And what choice do you have if you're a mother and child and the terrorist has a ****ing gun and threatens to kill your whole family.

Your thinking is so one dimensional.
 
Boo Radley said:
[That's funny, you use a source that uses deception to defend deception. That's funny stuff. :lamo :lamo :lamo
Click to expand...


They list quotes and make little to no commentary on it. your dismissal of this link of quotes, is a failure on your part, not mine. I knew you would not address it as an intellectual. Thank you for not disapointing.


He did not bring war to those poor people, displacing millions, killing about 100,000, and helping Iran out in the region.
Click to expand...


you are right, instead of iraqis killing each other to a tune of 100k, (there you go again infering US troops killed 100k civillians, abhorrent and disrespectful, but expected of you), Hussein killed what 400k of his own people, rape rooms, etc...

I am sorry you are sad to see hussein go.


I don't know of anyone who's quantified it, but I'd be interested in how you reeached your numbers.
Click to expand...



from here:

The Effect of Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq

however I can not post a copy due to its pay for access nature, but it tries to bolster your argument, but reading it, one comes to realize its far less than someone of your ilk wishes it would be.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
They list quotes and make little to no commentary on it. your dismissal of this link of quotes, is a failure on your part, not mine. I knew you would not address it as an intellectual. Thank you for not disapointing.
Click to expand...

I know, and we've gone through the out of context quotes before. Do we really have to do it again? Seriously? :lamo


you are right, instead of iraqis killing each other to a tune of 100k, (there you go again infering US troops killed 100k civillians, abhorrent and disrespectful, but expected of you), Hussein killed what 400k of his own people, rape rooms, etc...

I am sorry you are sad to see hussein go.
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point. When Saddam was killing, we did nothing. So, we wait until he's killed all he was going to kill, doing nothing to stop him, and when it is over, we bring war to add another 100,000, adding as I said, injury to injury.

Now I know you have low nationesteem, and make leaps, but the fact is, like it or not, we brought the war and the sitatuation that led to these deaths. We can't plead no role in it.





from here:

The Effect of Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq

however I can not post a copy due to its pay for access nature, but it tries to bolster your argument, but reading it, one comes to realize its far less than someone of your ilk wishes it would be.
Click to expand...

It sounds like an interesting read, but I yet see any reason to accept it. Not having evidence is not the same as having evidence that supports the point. I suspect we really can't be sure. And there focus is a little limited. We do not know the longer term effects. I remember a CIA report a few years ago that suggested the training our enemies received in Iraq would be used to kill people for decades.

However, i repeat, it sound like an interesting read.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know, and we've gone through the out of context quotes before. Do we really have to do it again? Seriously? :lamo
Click to expand...


We have? That's a lie.



Again, you miss the point. When Saddam was killing, we did nothing. So, we wait until he's killed all he was going to kill, doing nothing to stop him, and when it is over, we bring war to add another 100,000, adding as I said, injury to injury.
Click to expand...


I was all ready to go back in 91, bush I said no because the UN said no, the UN created sanctions, which created UNSCAM, and gave hussein lattitude to kill 400k of his own people. I find the excuse of not acting previous to be a deterent to acting later not a very insightful position to hold.


Now I know you have low nationesteem, and make leaps, but the fact is, like it or not, we brought the war and the sitatuation that led to these deaths. We can't plead no role in it.
Click to expand...

nor can we directly blame it on the US soldier as you infer. It's dishonest and a lie.


It sounds like an interesting read, but I yet see any reason to accept it. Not having evidence is not the same as having evidence that supports the point. I suspect we really can't be sure. And there focus is a little limited. We do not know the longer term effects. I remember a CIA report a few years ago that suggested the training our enemies received in Iraq would be used to kill people for decades.

However, i repeat, it sound like an interesting read.
Click to expand...


:shrug: the boo radley shuffle is in full swing. I give you the number, and the study, and you deflect and go with your speculation instead. I can't help the close minded ideologue.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
We have? That's a lie.
Click to expand...

:roll:

See Snopes. They lay out the out of context nature of the quotes.





I was all ready to go back in 91, bush I said no because the UN said no, the UN created sanctions, which created UNSCAM, and gave hussein lattitude to kill 400k of his own people. I find the excuse of not acting previous to be a deterent to acting later not a very insightful position to hold.
Click to expand...

As I said, we added injury to injury. No thanks you for beating them up after someone else beat them up. It's one thing if you stop the beating. Another to wait until it is over and get beat up again. This is why humanitarian groups who hated Sddam did not support or invasion.


nor can we directly blame it on the US soldier as you infer. It's dishonest and a lie.
Click to expand...

That's a stupid response and shows your nationesteem issue. No where do I blame the solider. I blame leadership, dishonest, reckless leadership. The problem was never the solider, but our leaders who either lied and were reckless, or lacked the backbone to do their job.


:shrug: the boo radley shuffle is in full swing. I give you the number, and the study, and you deflect and go with your speculation instead. I can't help the close minded ideologue.
Click to expand...

No, you give me a number, and an overview of the study that I can't fully investigate, and expect me to have no questions. I said it looks interesting, but without further examination, I can't give a full response. I have doubts. I suspect I'm not alone.
 
Boo Radley said:
:roll:

See Snopes. They lay out the out of context nature of the quotes.
Click to expand...


Oh so you haven't put them in context to me as you claimed. Snopes is unreliable as it explained away for example gores commentary on inventing the internet and other such liberal hot topics.


Sorry, it's no more credible than the RWN site I linked to. difference is, those were all simply quotes.


As I said, we added injury to injury. No thanks you for beating them up after someone else beat them up. It's one thing if you stop the beating. Another to wait until it is over and get beat up again. This is why humanitarian groups who hated Sddam did not support or invasion.
Click to expand...


So you want to stop a beating by not stopping the beator? What?



That's a stupid response and shows your nationesteem issue. No where do I blame the solider. I blame leadership, dishonest, reckless leadership. The problem was never the solider, but our leaders who either lied and were reckless, or lacked the backbone to do their job.
Click to expand...

"nationesteem" is this a new vernacular or something you picked up? it's cute in its dismissiveness.... If it was never the soldier, why then keep up the lie that "We" killed 100k?




No, you give me a number, and an overview of the study that I can't fully investigate, and expect me to have no questions. I said it looks interesting, but without further examination, I can't give a full response. I have doubts. I suspect I'm not alone.
Click to expand...


Whatever. I gave you the study, and the number, if you want to infer I am lying, you do so at your own embarrassing peril. Typical of the boo radley shuffle, and expected.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Oh so you haven't put them in context to me as you claimed. Snopes is unreliable as it explained away for example gores commentary on inventing the internet and other such liberal hot topics.


Sorry, it's no more credible than the RWN site I linked to. difference is, those were all simply quotes.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but snopes was right on both cases. You simply have it wrong again. ;)



So you want to stop a beating by not stopping the beator? What?
Click to expand...

No. We didn't stop the beating. Didn't even try to. We waited until it was over, and started a new beating.




"nationesteem" is this a new vernacular or something you picked up? it's cute in its dismissiveness.... If it was never the soldier, why then keep up the lie that "We" killed 100k?
Click to expand...

We, as in as a nation. Our leaders, representing us, brought war to a country without just cause, and the result was 100,000 plus civilian deaths.






Whatever. I gave you the study, and the number, if you want to infer I am lying, you do so at your own embarrassing peril. Typical of the boo radley shuffle, and expected.
Click to expand...

I never infered anything of the kind. Perhaps you have low self esteem as well as low nationesteem. I said directly that I doubt they could actully do a study that would really give us a true and undebatable number. I doubt them, and said nothing about you. I don't doubt them because they are an ivalid source, as they appear to be fine. I doubt such a finding is possible.

But, without being able to examine it further, no fault of yours, that's all I can say.
Click to expand...
 
Fix your quotes, I am not going to respond to your mess when you can't even quote right. I've already fixed them numerous times. :lamo
 
Degreez said:
There is no certainty, but to suggest that there is "no knowledge" of civilian damage when planning/commencing operations is just flat out wrong. Steps are always taken to prevent civilian damage by civilized armies. However, there is no cause to take action when excessive civilian damage is not only possible, but probable.
Click to expand...

Steps are taken to lower the odds of civilian damage, you cannot prevent it when your enemies use them as human shields without informing you first, and they're not going to inform you of that either.
So you can drop leaflets and call civilian homes and everything, but that cannot assure you that civilians will not die. Terrorists are not simply going to be let off and left untargeted because there will always be a chance of civilian casualties.
 
What the liberals don't even realize is how the terrorists are playing right into their hands.

Terrorists know how to garner the support of a bleeding heart liberal, just use civilians as human shields and when the evil US forces fire upon them, they can report tons of civilian casualties. Of course for said libtard that means the war is wrong, the cause is not just, the casualties are unnecessary.

Meanwhile, back in the safehouse, they are laughing their asses of at the American left who are buying their bull**** hook line and sinker.
 
Last edited:
No. We are against the war because we do not think it worthy of their sacrifice. War should only be a last resort and this is war isn't necessary.Look at how many are being injured

"Yesterday’s deaths took the overall fatalities among US/ISAF troops this year to 692—479 of whom were Americans. Between 500 and 600 American troops are also being wounded in Afghanistan every month, many suffering horrifying injuries from roadside bombs."


Another massacre of civilians in Afghanistan
 
Kane,


I applaud your consistancy. Too bad the war became irrelevant to all the other anti war types the day obama took office. Your side needs more of you.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Fix your quotes, I am not going to respond to your mess when you can't even quote right. I've already fixed them numerous times. :lamo
Click to expand...

I'm not having any trouble following it. Just looking for excuses are you?
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Kane,


I applaud your consistancy. Too bad the war became irrelevant to all the other anti war types the day obama took office. Your side needs more of you.
Click to expand...

I was anti-Iraq, and now that's pretty much resolved. I think most rational liberals dislike the Afghan war but realize there's no easy way out.
 
"Every Afghan civilian death diminishes our cause"

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, the coalition's commander in Afghanistan, issued a rare apology Wednesday for a helicopter strike that killed nine children, hours after Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the allies for launching what he called a "ruthless attack." Nine related boys ages 8 to 14 were killed while collecting firewood in a remote part of Kunar province, according to Afghan officials and family members. "I don't care about the apology," Mohammed Bismil, the 20-year-old brother of two boys killed in the strike, said in a telephone interview. "The only option I have is to pick up a Kalashnikov, RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] or a suicide vest to fight."

General David Petraeus Apologizes for Deaths of Afghan Children - WSJ.com
 
Jetboogieman said:
I love the fact I present an entire argument, and you'll only address one ****ing sentence.

And what choice do you have if you're a mother and child and the terrorist has a ****ing gun and threatens to kill your whole family.

Your thinking is so one dimensional.
Click to expand...


As is your own thinking, according to you .. if we kill a mother and child to get to this terrorist, the father is going to pick up a gun and fight against us correct? Why wouldn't he be just as apt to pick up that gun and fight against the terrorist that was holding his wife and child hostage? Is that terrorist any more or less at fault?

Then again, why are we even there? If as you say, people will pick up arms and fight against those that killed their family, then this should have been settled years ago, it's not like this killing of civilians just started 7 years ago is it?

Well I agree, and I think most here agree, civilian casualties are a terrible thing, they can and do happen in war. These wars that are the topic here, are not clear and clean cut wars, the enemy doesn't wear a uniforms, nor are they willing to wage direct open combat against us. We learned in Iraq, that it's going to get dirty, to make any head way it's going to be bloody, now we can either accept that, and do what we have set out to do, or we can get the hell out.

To Me the reasons we were in Iraq, or why we are in Afghanistan are irrelevant, the simple fact is we are there. I honor the young men and women in our armed forces to much, to place them in a war, set restrictions so that our mission cannot be accomplished. Have the balls to finish our mission, or have the balls to stand down, and withdraw our troops, to let our troops keep dying for nothing is not an option.
 
Apocalypse said:
Steps are taken to lower the odds of civilian damage, you cannot prevent it when your enemies use them as human shields without informing you first, and they're not going to inform you of that either.
So you can drop leaflets and call civilian homes and everything, but that cannot assure you that civilians will not die. Terrorists are not simply going to be let off and left untargeted because there will always be a chance of civilian casualties.
Click to expand...
Everyone knows that civilians will always be a casualty of war. What I am discussing and what you are ignoring is the avoidance of operations when excessive civilian damage is probable. International conventions state that some number of combatants among a civilian population does not render those civilians as legitimate targets. This line of thinking is the same reasoning used by the commander of all NATO forces in Afghanistan. Not too long ago he revised the counter-insurgency manual and ordered NATO personnel to not take force when civilians are present (unless in self-defense). One has to wonder why NATO forces are disobeying a directive from a commanding officer (ie - the OP).
 
Degreez said:
Everyone knows that civilians will always be a casualty of war. What I am discussing and what you are ignoring is the avoidance of operations when excessive civilian damage is probable. International conventions state that some number of combatants among a civilian population does not render those civilians as legitimate targets. This line of thinking is the same reasoning used by the commander of all NATO forces in Afghanistan. Not too long ago he revised the counter-insurgency manual and ordered NATO personnel to not take force when civilians are present (unless in self-defense). One has to wonder why NATO forces are disobeying a directive from a commanding officer (ie - the OP).
Click to expand...

One first has to wonder what makes you believe that the ones who have ordered the attack have known that there were civilians in the targeted area?
 
Apocalypse said:
One first has to wonder what makes you believe that the ones who have ordered the attack have known that there were civilians in the targeted area?
Click to expand...

... That is the point I am making. The event in question is related to air strikes on a small village(s) in Ghaziabad. In what way did NATO make sure that there were no civilians close enough to the air strikes? If the OP is true (or even slightly exaggerated), then there is no possible way they could have said there were no civilians present before committing to operations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom