• 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:
Sure. Sounds great. um, fine one yet? Please, let us know when you do.
Click to expand...

Bite your tongue.

We've got wind farms. And Priuseseses.

So there.
 
apdst said:
Our interference in WW2 didn't motivate the enemy? :lamo

Keep trying, son. You might hit on something, sooner or later. Hell, even a blind hog finds and acorn.
Click to expand...

Not on the personal level no. You had leaders and rulers who spoke and sureender or got beaten, under one national falg, in one palce, under one control. It was a very different situation.
 
apdst said:
Sure. Sounds great. um, fine one yet? Please, let us know when you do.
Click to expand...

There are some optins already, but I suspect we're a resourceful people and if we sold out to the idaea, we'd manage to fine a way.
 
Erod said:
Bite your tongue.

We've got wind farms. And Priuseseses.

So there.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Chevy Volt, that starts at 40 grand. I'm sure nearly everyone can afford that, in this economy. :rofl
 
Boo Radley said:
There are some optins already, but I suspect we're a resourceful people and if we sold out to the idaea, we'd manage to fine a way.
Click to expand...

How come they haven't hit the market and taken off?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not on the personal level no. You had leaders and rulers who spoke and sureender or got beaten, under one national falg, in one palce, under one control. It was a very different situation.
Click to expand...

Right!...LOL!

That's your tactical perspective on the issue?
 
apdst said:
How old were you on 11 September 2001? Yes, we had to invade Afghanistan. We were attacked, remember?
Click to expand...

the Afghan war was planned before 9-11

"On 9 September 2001, Bush was presented with a draft of a national security presidential directive outlining a global campaign of military, diplomatic and intelligence action targeting al-Qaeda, buttressed by the threat of war. According to NBC News: `President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaeda . . . but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks . . . The directive, as described to NBC News, was essentially the same war plan as the one put into action after 11 September. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly . . . because it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf".'

"Finally, BBC News, 18 September 2001: `Niak Naik, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik's view that Washington would not drop its war for Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.'

The Enemy Withi, by Gore Vidal, 10/27/02
 
Kane said:
the Afghan war was planned before 9-11

"On 9 September 2001, Bush was presented with a draft of a national security presidential directive outlining a global campaign of military, diplomatic and intelligence action targeting al-Qaeda, buttressed by the threat of war. According to NBC News: `President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaeda . . . but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks . . . The directive, as described to NBC News, was essentially the same war plan as the one put into action after 11 September. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly . . . because it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf".'

"Finally, BBC News, 18 September 2001: `Niak Naik, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. It was Naik's view that Washington would not drop its war for Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.'

The Enemy Withi, by Gore Vidal, 10/27/02
Click to expand...

FYI, the military has pre-planned war plans for every situation in the world at all times. There are plans for Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc, etc, etc.

It's been that way your whole lifetime.
 
Thanks for that insider bit of crappola, Mr. military.
 
Kane said:
Thanks for that insider bit of crappola, Mr. military.
Click to expand...

This is pretty fifth-grade information, fella. Time to bone up a bit.

You honestly didn't know we have contingency war strategies for our enemies and problem spots in the world? Really? What do you think they're doing at the Pentagon all day?
 
Get on your knees, your already a slave to NeoCon oil barons.

“War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.”
George Orwell
 
We should have been in and out of Afghanistan in a matter of months. We invaded, almost immediately corralled the lions' share of Taliban and Al Qaeda in Tora Bora, where we could have wiped out the entire bunch, including top management... IF the war hadn't been mismanaged by that fool, Rumsfeld, who would not deploy the troops needed for a fast and crushing victory because he was holding back enough troops for the planned invasion of Iraq that was probably on the drawing board by Sept 12, 2001.

The minute we failed at Tora Bora and allowed swarms of islamist radicals to flood Pakistan, both Afghanistan and Pakistan were irrevocably lost. It's over. We need to get out of there immediately. Leave no military bases, leave no soldiers, no equipment, nothing. Just. Get. Out.
 
apdst said:
What are they supposed to do, go have a look around and then launch the airstrike?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you honestly believe that is the only possible way NATO forces have of making sure there are no civilians present.

I'm curious why half you apologists can only give hyperbole instead of well reasoning alternatives. It's like critical thinking is mentally impossible.
 
apdst said:
Ok, tell us how we kill the enemy and prevent civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

There's no absolute way to prevent all civilian casualities. The object is to minimize civilian casualties, which is obvious from General Petraeus modifications to the COIN manual. Air strikes, especially drone strikes, can be pretty indiscriminate. If nothing was done to protect civilians, reports like these would be regular.
 
American said:
Anyone who expects us to KNOW the outcome before the mission is unrealistic. Do you think they aren't trying to avoid civilians casualties?
Click to expand...

No has ever suggested to know the outcome of military operations before they occur, so you really have no point there. I already said civilized armies do their best to minimize civilian casualties. However, reports of mass civilian loss like this contradict the sentiment that we are doing our best to avoid civilian casualties. Do you think wanton destruction of civilian (people who have no participation in hostilities) property is something that should be disregarded? You don't win a war by killing the people who aren't participating in it. That's terrorism and that's not how we fight our wars.
 
Kane said:
the Afghan war was planned before 9-11
Click to expand...

We've anticipated and practiced lots military operations. The vast majority have never been executed.

It's called planning. It's going on right now at a US military base near you.
 
Degreez said:
Yes, if you honestly believe that is the only possible way NATO forces have of making sure there are no civilians present.

I'm curious why half you apologists can only give hyperbole instead of well reasoning alternatives. It's like critical thinking is mentally impossible.
Click to expand...

What do you do when jihadis take children with them to fight?
 
Degreez said:
However, reports of mass civilian loss like this contradict the sentiment that we are doing our best to avoid civilian casualties. Do you think wanton destruction of civilian (people who have no participation in hostilities) property is something that should be disregarded? You don't win a war by killing the people who aren't participating in it. That's terrorism and that's not how we fight our wars.
Click to expand...

The US and NATO forces take great pains to avoid civilian casualties and there is no "wanton destruction of civilian property".

jihadis hide behind women and children and then blame their deaths on US or NATO forces.

They did the same thing in Iraq. It didn't work for them there and it won't work for them in Afghanistan despite the best efforts of al-Jazeera and other 'media' sources.
 
apdst said:
Right!...LOL!

That's your tactical perspective on the issue?
Click to expand...

The history is fairly clear. We have not been anywhere near as successful in this type of conflict as we have with more traditional wars. Ignoring this is something done at our peril.
 
apdst said:
How come they haven't hit the market and taken off?
Click to expand...

Like most things, new means expensive. The government could help, as they do on occassion, by buying a fleet of alternative vehicles. But regardless, there isn't much will as of yet.
 
Kane said:
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."

Afghan delegation confirms killing 65 civilians killed by NATO during operation
Click to expand...

Do you believe everything you read?
 
apdst said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can believe that not every one of these people were "civilians".
 
Boo Radley said:
1. Al Qaeda didn't. Al Qaeda in Iraq was made up overwhelmingly of Iraqis who took the name. But if you type fly paper strategy, you will see some actually arguing that the Iraqi people should be the bait for bringing Al Qeada into their country. That's not exactly what happened, as I said, there was little of those connected to any group prior to taking up arms in Iraq. These were mostly Iraqis, and those coming into the country were mostly new recruits.

2. You can't start a war between people not already willing to fight each other. Anyone looking at the history ahd to know this was going to be a problem. The divisions are artificial and deep seeded.

3. I can't argue what you think any more than I can argue what I think. But I can argue that it wasn't a good idea, and here's why: a. It cost too much in terms of lives and money both, and for little to no real gain. b. At the end of the day, it favors Iran. At best, it allows for more friendly relations between the two nations. At worse, Iraq eventually alines with Iran. c. It ebenfitted our enemy by helping with recruitment, adding to their status (being important enough to have such a powerful nation openly decalre war agains thems), and hurt our reputation everywhere.
Click to expand...

1.) I’m well aware that AQI recruited heavily within Iraq and had some success. The fact remains that thousands of foreign jihadis flooded into Iraq before and after OIF. They were responsible for the major attacks aimed at mosques and large groups of innocent people.

Foreign militants constitute about 10% of al-Qaeda's strength in Iraq, but Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said they make up about 90% of the suicide bombers.
Foreign fighters leaving Iraq, military says - USATODAY.com

A man identified as the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said on an audiotape Thursday that more than 4,000 foreign fighters have died battling the U.S.-led coalition and Iraqi troops.Terror tape says 4,000 foreign fighters killed in Iraq - CNN

2.) They did try to start a war between the Sunni and Shia and failed. Nobody that I remember predicted AQI would import thousands of foreign jihadis into Iraq and set about trying to start a war between the Sunni and Shia.

3.) Simply put, I understand your reasoning on why Iraq was a bad idea and I disagree.



Boo Radley said:
No, that's conservative myth.
Click to expand...

No, it isn’t.

The NIE's conclusions are, however, supported by a source that cannot be ignored: al Qaeda's two principal leaders. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri have repeatedly called Iraq the "front line" in their war against Western civilization.

The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.Iraq Is the Central Front | The Weekly Standard

Boo Radley said:
And no, I still maintain it does not matter who is doing the killing because we brought the war. With us invading, those 100,000 would not have been killed. At the end of the day we cannot pretend that isn't true. So while soliders did a great job, and may well have made inroads with some, the act itself, of which or leaders hold responsibility, cannot be divorced from the consequences.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. It does matter who is killing innocent civilians and why.

The vast majority of the 100,000(?) killed in Iraq have been killed by jihadis. That matters.

If you think the US and Coalition forces are responsible then so be it. I completely disagree.

BTW, sorry it took so long to get back to you. Your well written post needed more than a few moments for a response.
 
Last edited:
Ron Mars said:
1.) I’m well aware that AQI recruited heavily within Iraq and had some success. The fact remains that thousands of foreign jihadis flooded into Iraq before and after OIF. They were responsible for the major attacks aimed at mosques and large groups of innocent people.

Foreign militants constitute about 10% of al-Qaeda's strength in Iraq, but Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said they make up about 90% of the suicide bombers.
Foreign fighters leaving Iraq, military says - USATODAY.com

A man identified as the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq said on an audiotape Thursday that more than 4,000 foreign fighters have died battling the U.S.-led coalition and Iraqi troops.Terror tape says 4,000 foreign fighters killed in Iraq - CNN

2.) They did try to start a war between the Sunni and Shia and failed. Nobody that I remember predicted AQI would import thousands of foreign jihadis into Iraq and set about trying to start a war between the Sunni and Shia.

3.) Simply put, I understand your reasoning on why Iraq was a bad idea and I disagree.
Click to expand...

Again, they didn't have to recruit. Iraqis took their name. 10% does not make up a heavy investment. Seriously. It doesn't. And again, those who came were people who did not belong to any terrorist group before.



No, it isn’t.

The NIE's conclusions are, however, supported by a source that cannot be ignored: al Qaeda's two principal leaders. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri have repeatedly called Iraq the "front line" in their war against Western civilization.

The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate.Iraq Is the Central Front | The Weekly Standard
Click to expand...


Few publications got more things wrong than the Weekly Standard. But source aside, you believe everything the enemy says? This would be a flaw in your thinking IMHO. We can't judge by what is said, but would do better to measure what was done. They did not invest heavily in Iraq, as they won the second we went in. Going in gave them everything they did not have before, a recruitment tool, prestige, and a way to watch us spend lives and money, thus hurting us. They needed nothing more than that.

I respectfully disagree. It does matter who is killing innocent civilians and why.

The vast majority of the 100,000(?) killed in Iraq have been killed by jihadis. That matters.

If you think the US and Coalition forces are responsible then so be it. I completely disagree.

BTW, sorry it took so long to get back to you. Your well written post needed more than a few moments for a response.
Click to expand...

Iraqis were largely killed by Iraqis, us merely the referee. But, there would have been no civil war plus without or invasion. You can't remove our responsibility for those lives.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom