NATO strike kills nine in northeast Afghanistan

[bonobo]

I repeat:

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

For those who are the aggressor and occupy foreign territory, using air raids, carpet bombing and depleted uranium weapons there is really no excuse.

You can repeat it all you want, but that does not make you right. you obviously have very little concept of war.

Given that war is a last resort, sometimes it is the only resort. The Taliban gave succor and protection to those who attacked the US, so to call NATO the "aggressors" is just not historically accurate. And once in, NATO tried to put in a government which can run the country as a world citizen. This government still needs and requests assistance, and we are bound to give that assistance.

And for you to spout platitudes shows that you are beyond the ken of human philosophy. War is bad, and civlians get killed. Just look at WWII where both sides killed the civilians of the other side to either break their will or in hopes of hitting strategic or tactical targets. The difference is that NATO has gotten better at limiting civilians where the Taliban targets civilians.

Whether you get your head cut off by the Taliban or a NATO bomb lands on your head, it doesn't matter on an individual level. Dead is dead. But it does matter on a philosophical level, e pretty much part of the human condition.

I will make you judge and jury. Say Person A is late and is speeding home from work. Because he is speeding, he hits and kills a pedestrian. Person B sees a pedestrian walking on the road, and not wanting him to walk, he shoots and kills him. You are the judge, and you convict both men. Do you give both the same penalty? They both killed the pedestrian, right?

All deaths in war, both civilian and military, are lamentable. But at least NATO is striving to limit civilian casualites, and this is to be lauded, not dismisses. Sure, they can do better. But they aren't taking teachers our in the schoolyard and shooting them for teaching girls. And for you to ignore this distinction is to ignore a very basic concept of what it means to be human.

Experience real combat. Go into a war zone. THen come out of your ivory tower and give the rest of us a morality lesson.

[beechguy]

Well my point is, if you are so concerned about civilian casualties why haven't we seen you make a negative remark about the Taliban in this, or any other thread for that matter?

Maybe you didn't notice. this topic is about NATO troops killing children. And there is no excuse for it.

Yes, I did notice. and I can see from your answers, or lack of, that you are more interested in bashing NATO, and the ISAF than any real interest in civilian casualties. You have been given numerous opporunties to say you reject Taliban violence against civilians, and not one time have said so. I think that probably speaks volumes to your character, but perhaps it's just me, but I doubt it.

[beechguy]

One of the latest reports I read, said the insurgents, Taleban, al Qaeda, etc. were responsible for as much as 76% of the civilian casualties, but I never I hear a peep from these same people who are so concerned about civilian casualties, so that's why I have my doubts about their sincerity.

And you never will because its only "cool" to bash America. The Talaban et all are really nice guys

Sorry this is not about that the Taliban are nice guys. Its about NATO forces killing lots of civilians with some air strikes.

And some people with no respect to human life argue its not a problem because it was just accidentally as always. According to them the real intention of air raids, carpet bombings and the usage of depleted uranium weapons is to build schools and hospitals and help poor women. But i doubt that.

And how many schools and hospitals were the Taliban trying to build?

[BKKarim]

I repeat:

Words like ' we don't do it intentionally' (it just happen accidentally when bombs explode) are ugly excuses with no respect to human life.

For those who are the aggressor and occupy foreign territory, using air raids, carpet bombing and depleted uranium weapons there is really no excuse.

You can repeat it all you want, but that does not make you right. you obviously have very little concept of war.

Given that war is a last resort, sometimes it is the only resort. The Taliban gave succor and protection to those who attacked the US, so to call NATO the "aggressors" is just not historically accurate. And once in, NATO tried to put in a government which can run the country as a world citizen. This government still needs and requests assistance, and we are bound to give that assistance.

And for you to spout platitudes shows that you are beyond the ken of human philosophy. War is bad, and civlians get killed. Just look at WWII where both sides killed the civilians of the other side to either break their will or in hopes of hitting strategic or tactical targets. The difference is that NATO has gotten better at limiting civilians where the Taliban targets civilians.

Whether you get your head cut off by the Taliban or a NATO bomb lands on your head, it doesn't matter on an individual level. Dead is dead. But it does matter on a philosophical level, e pretty much part of the human condition.

I will make you judge and jury. Say Person A is late and is speeding home from work. Because he is speeding, he hits and kills a pedestrian. Person B sees a pedestrian walking on the road, and not wanting him to walk, he shoots and kills him. You are the judge, and you convict both men. Do you give both the same penalty? They both killed the pedestrian, right?

All deaths in war, both civilian and military, are lamentable. But at least NATO is striving to limit civilian casualites, and this is to be lauded, not dismisses. Sure, they can do better. But they aren't taking teachers our in the schoolyard and shooting them for teaching girls. And for you to ignore this distinction is to ignore a very basic concept of what it means to be human.

Experience real combat. Go into a war zone. THen come out of your ivory tower and give the rest of us a morality lesson.

Where do you come from? Is there a war in your home country? Is it occupied by foreign forces who promises you the will do the best for your people. Does member of your family and friends suffer from bomb raids and became victims of these 'accidents' that happen in wars?

Or are you just part of an invasion forces and declare yourself to an hero for not killing civilians all the time but sometimes stop the fire?

And finally compare and air strike that kills children and women it with driving faster than the speed limit because you wanna reach your work in time?

And who is the rest of us?

[BKKarim]

One of the latest reports I read, said the insurgents, Taleban, al Qaeda, etc. were responsible for as much as 76% of the civilian casualties, but I never I hear a peep from these same people who are so concerned about civilian casualties, so that's why I have my doubts about their sincerity.

And you never will because its only "cool" to bash America. The Talaban et all are really nice guys

Sorry this is not about that the Taliban are nice guys. Its about NATO forces killing lots of civilians with some air strikes.

And some people with no respect to human life argue its not a problem because it was just accidentally as always. According to them the real intention of air raids, carpet bombings and the usage of depleted uranium weapons is to build schools and hospitals and help poor women. But i doubt that.

And how many schools and hospitals were the Taliban trying to build?

HELLO.

This is not about the Taliban. Its about NATO air strikes killing women and children. That isn't the way to build schools and hospitals.

[BKKarim]

Well my point is, if you are so concerned about civilian casualties why haven't we seen you make a negative remark about the Taliban in this, or any other thread for that matter?

Maybe you didn't notice. this topic is about NATO troops killing children. And there is no excuse for it.

Yes, I did notice. and I can see from your answers, or lack of, that you are more interested in bashing NATO, and the ISAF than any real interest in civilian casualties. You have been given numerous opporunties to say you reject Taliban violence against civilians, and not one time have said so. I think that probably speaks volumes to your character, but perhaps it's just me, but I doubt it.

How often i have to say this?

There is NO EXCUSE for killing children!

No matter who kills the children, there is no excuse for it. The only one who seems to try to excuse it are you.

[bonobo]

Where do you come from? Is there a war in your home country? Is it occupied by foreign forces who promises you the will do the best for your people. Does member of your family and friends suffer from bomb raids and became victims of these 'accidents' that happen in wars?

Or are you just part of an invasion forces and declare yourself to an hero for not killing civilians all the time but sometimes stop the fire?

And finally compare and air strike that kills children and women it with driving faster than the speed limit because you wanna reach your work in time?

And who is the rest of us?

I have experienced war, which unless you tell us different, is more than you can say. So don't give me your platitudes.

Unless you have experienced war, then I know more than you about the evils inherent to it. I have seen the bodies. I have carried them, both military and civilian. I have sat with a young Iraqi boy, shredded by US shrapnel, as he lay in his bed at the Air Force hospital in Balad. So I know first-hand the pain. I have seen it.

But your pie-in-the-sky platitudes do no one any good. Rather, attitudes like that can just make the world situation worse, thereby increasing the risk of conflict, making sure more people die.

I am still ashamed that no foreign country got involved with Rwanda or Burundi. I would have applauded any country which "invaded" and "occupied" either one to stop the genocide. Sometimes, invasion is the far lesser of two evils.

And I am sorry that you cannot see the efficacy of making the something different to make a point. I guess it makes sense, now, given your lack of logic so far exhibited, but my "what if" was not comparing driving to war. It was showing that intent does matter, even if the outcome is the same. And if you can't grasp that concept, then there is little use of continued posting.

For the record, I detest and grieve over every single civilian death, and to be honest, I feel bad for every military death as well, from both sides. All we can do, as members of the military, is that given our missions, is to try to limit all civilian casualties.

We drive on the roads, knowing that x-number of people will die in accidents. We go to war knowing tha x-number of people will be killed. But we try to make that number as small as possible. And your snide remarks concerning those efforts contribute nothing to that cause, to limit casualties.

[bonobo]

HELLO.

This is not about the Taliban. Its about NATO air strikes killing women and children. That isn't the way to build schools and hospitals.

Sorry, nothing is in a vacuum. You cannot write about NATO creating civilian casualties without mention of the very reason they are there.

[BKKarim]

...

For the record, I detest and grieve over every single civilian death,...

So do I, you called it "pie-in-the-sky platitudes"

[bonobo]

...

For the record, I detest and grieve over every single civilian death,...

So do I, you called it "pie-in-the-sky platitudes"

Wrong. Resenting or detesting civilian deaths is not the "pie-in-the-sky platitude." That is a normal, human feeling that I am sure pretty much every poster here has.

Your platitudes about there being "no excuse," that this is because of the NATO "occupiers" offer nothing to the issue. Your ignoring of the Taliban and what the Afghanistan and NATO forces are combating is specious.

No one is saying, that I read, that is is OK to kill a child because it is accidental. But it is not "murder," as I think you posted. Murder requires purpose and intent. In my pedestrian analogy, which you seemed unable to grasp that it was an analogy, Person B, who shot the pedestrian, was gulity of pre-meditated murder. Person A, who ran over him, was guilty, but not of murder. There was no intent.

As a Marine, I never had to kill anyone, thank goodness. But if I had seen a group of insurgents taking aim on either my Marines or civilians, but they has a small boy marching along with them, I would have ordered my Marines to open fire, even knowing that I would suffer in my thoughts for it. Yes, killing a child is horrible, but unfortunately, sometimes teh lessor fo two evils is the only option.

[BKKarim]

HELLO.

This is not about the Taliban. Its about NATO air strikes killing women and children. That isn't the way to build schools and hospitals.

Sorry, nothing is in a vacuum. You cannot write about NATO creating civilian casualties without mention of the very reason they are there.

You cannot excuse the killing of children with telling some horror stories about the Taliban. Such excuses just show that some people have no respect for the life of these victims.

But okay, the reason why the NATO is there:

The US government claimed that the aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to it. The George W. Bush administration stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organizations and nations or governments that harbored them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

The war started October 7, 2001. $ weeks after 9/11. War, the last resort as you said.

4 weeks time had the Taliban to a capture and arrest Osama and handing them over to the US (if they would have been willing to do so). They failed they didn't hand over Osama so the war started.

And now,new goverment, country occupied by NATO forces. What about the mission to arrest Osama and put him on trail. Did the USA managed to do that or did they just demanded the impossible from others?

9/11 was a criminal act. the response should be criminal investigation by the police and maybe also the secret service and not using the absolute final and last resort, the war, just after 4 week time.

BOMBING OF AFGHANISTAN IS ILLEGAL AND MUST BE STOPPED Professor Marjorie Cohn Thomas Jefferson School of Law

jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew36.htm

[bonobo]

You cannot excuse the killing of children with telling some horror stories about the Taliban. Such excuses just show that some people have no respect for the life of these victims.

But okay, the reason why the NATO is there:

The US government claimed that the aim of the invasion was to find Osama bin Laden and other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members to be put on trial, to destroy the organization of Al-Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban regime which supported and gave safe harbor to it. The George W. Bush administration stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between terrorist organizations and nations or governments that harbored them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

The war started October 7, 2001. $ weeks after 9/11. War, the last resort as you said.

4 weeks time had the Taliban to a capture and arrest Osama and handing them over to the US (if they would have been willing to do so). They failed they didn't hand over Osama so the war started.

And now,new goverment, country occupied by NATO forces. What about the mission to arrest Osama and put him on trail. Did the USA managed to do that or did they just demanded the impossible from others?

9/11 was a criminal act. the response should be criminal investigation by the police and maybe also the secret service and not using the absolute final and last resort, the war, just after 4 week time.

BOMBING OF AFGHANISTAN IS ILLEGAL AND MUST BE STOPPED Professor Marjorie Cohn Thomas Jefferson School of Law

jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew36.htm

Seeing as how the Taliban said they would refuse to turn over bin Laden, then why does it make a difference on who long it took before the war started? Please use some logic here.

I can understand the logic used by some to say the war should not have started, although the case is not nearly as strong for that as it was for Iraq. But the fact of the matter is that is was started, and all the revisionist history buffs in the world won't change that. And given that it was started, NATO has the obligation to try and make things as right as can be in that country.

Whether the US was able to arrest bin Laden is a non sequitur. Success or lack thereof does nothing to vindicate nor dam_n the appropriateness of action taken.

And as for Prof Cohn, quoting various academics proves pretty much nothing. There are plenty of academics who have said just the opposite. What makes one "right" over the other? Right or wrong, should have or shouldn't have can be better argued that legality as with Cohn's quote as bombing has been generally taken as "legal" in previous conflicts, even bombings conducted by the losing side.

[BKKarim]

No one is saying, that I read, that is is OK to kill a child because it is accidental. But it is not "murder," as I think you posted. Murder requires purpose and intent. In my pedestrian analogy, which you seemed unable to grasp that it was an analogy, Person B, who shot the pedestrian, was gulity of pre-meditated murder. Person A, who ran over him, was guilty, but not of murder. There was no intent.

Purpose and intention?

What do you expect to happen if you drop some bombs over some area without carefully checking who might be there around and you have 64 dead civilians?

Do NATO soldier don't know that bombs kill people?

World English Dictionary murder (ˈmɜːdə)

— vb

5. ( also intr ) to kill (someone) unlawfully with premeditation or during the commission of a crime

6. to kill brutally

[BKKarim]

And as for Prof Cohn, quoting various academics proves pretty much nothing. There are plenty of academics who have said just the opposite. What makes one "right" over the other? Right or wrong, should have or shouldn't have can be better argued that legality as with Cohn's quote as bombing has been generally taken as "legal" in previous conflicts, even bombings conducted by the losing side.

Of course there are plenty of other sources who would argue the other way around. How to deal with different opinions? Are they valid?

I could quote you:

"Wrong", "pie-in-the-sky platitudes", "You can repeat it all you want, but that does not make you right." and " Dead is dead."

On February 18, 64 civilians were killed during a similar strike in Ghaziabad district of the province. Afghan investigators, who accused NATO-led forces, said the dead included 20 women and 29 children.

That is no good. Period.

[koheesti]

There is a difference, the ISAF has been extremely careful to avoid civilian casualties, the insurgents make it their strategy to intentionly kill civilians.

I wonder why some refuse to acknowledge this very obvious difference? I could name a few posters here who rather than admit the above would gnaw off their own arms and begin on their legs if they could reach.

Yes both kill civilians. One side in the process of occupation and aggression the other side in the process of defense and resistance against the occupation forces. That is the difference.

Two questions:

1) Do you think the violent death and suffering of women, children and other civilians will end, stay the same, or increase when the USA and allies leave Afghanistan?

2) If NATO goes into Libya to stop the slaughter of the civilians by Gaddafi, won't NATO be in the role of occupier and aggressor and Gaddafi the defender of his country?

[beechguy]

No one is saying, that I read, that is is OK to kill a child because it is accidental. But it is not "murder," as I think you posted. Murder requires purpose and intent. In my pedestrian analogy, which you seemed unable to grasp that it was an analogy, Person B, who shot the pedestrian, was gulity of pre-meditated murder. Person A, who ran over him, was guilty, but not of murder. There was no intent.

Purpose and intention?

What do you expect to happen if you drop some bombs over some area without carefully checking who might be there around and you have 64 dead civilians?

Do NATO soldier don't know that bombs kill people?

World English Dictionary murder (ˈmɜːdə)

vb

5. ( also intr ) to kill (someone) unlawfully with premeditation or during the commission of a crime

6. to kill brutally

Seems you may have a misundertsanding of their meaning of intent. So, I take it the next headline describing an intentional Taliban attack on civilians, we'll see the same acclamation as to how wrong it is for them to kill innocent civilians?

Edited March 7, 2011 by beechguy

[BKKarim]

2) If NATO goes into Libya to stop the slaughter of the civilians by Gaddafi, won't NATO be in the role of occupier and aggressor and Gaddafi the defender of his country?

What has Gaddafi in Libya to do with the killing of civilians by NATO forces in Afghanistan as reported in the OP?

If there would be any valid albeit still odd question it should be something like this: Should China or Russia or whoever bomb the USA and other NATO states back to the stone age for killing civilians in Afghanistan?

Answer: Of course not!

[Wallaby]

Some here seem to think that because the Taliban etc are killing civilians then it is ok that NATO does the same. I would have thought NATO should hold themselves above the Taliban and others and perhaps be a bit better.

Saying NATO is better than the Taliban is hardly setting a high standard.

[BKKarim]

Seems you may have a misundertsanding of their meaning of intent. So, I take it the next headline describing an intentional Taliban attack on civilians, we'll see the same acclamation as to how wrong it is for them to kill innocent civilians?

What is your intention with your crude line of arguments?

It will change nothing at the fact that the people the OP speaks about were killed by NATO forces.

Bombs are dropped to destroy and to kill, that is the solely purpose of it and not to build hospitals. A Bomber pilot isn't a Mother Teresa.

[beechguy]

Some here seem to think that because the Taliban etc are killing civilians then it is ok that NATO does the same. I would have thought NATO should hold themselves above the Taliban and others and perhaps be a bit better.

Saying NATO is better than the Taliban is hardly setting a high standard.

I haven't seen anyone make that assertion that the killing of civilians is ok, I do however, hardly see a response to an article condemning the Taliban or Al Qaeda when they blow up a market or attack school children. Have a look at those threads and see how many complain. Leads me to believe that many are more concerend about bashing the west rather than the civilians.

[beechguy]

Seems you may have a misundertsanding of their meaning of intent. So, I take it the next headline describing an intentional Taliban attack on civilians, we'll see the same acclamation as to how wrong it is for them to kill innocent civilians?

What is your intention with your crude line of arguments?

It will change nothing at the fact that the people the OP speaks about were killed by NATO forces.

Bombs are dropped to destroy and to kill, that is the solely purpose of it and not to build hospitals. A Bomber pilot isn't a Mother Teresa.

The intenion of my arguments is to expose how many disingenuous posters are on this forum, they claim they are concerned about civilian casualties when in fact they are far more interested in bashing the western powers.

And again, I ask you how many schools did the Taliban build? How many have they intentionally attacked is the more appropriate question.

Edited March 7, 2011 by beechguy

[Wallaby]

Some here seem to think that because the Taliban etc are killing civilians then it is ok that NATO does the same. I would have thought NATO should hold themselves above the Taliban and others and perhaps be a bit better.

Saying NATO is better than the Taliban is hardly setting a high standard.

I haven't seen anyone make that assertion that the killing of civilians is ok, I do however, hardly see a response to an article condemning the Taliban or Al Qaeda when they blow up a market or attack school children. Have a look at those threads and see how many complain. Leads me to believe that many are more concerend about bashing the west rather than the civilians.

I'm sure when the topic on the forum is about the Taliban killing innocents there will be comment on how bad they are. I'm sure any right minded person would admit that, surely, but........this topic is about NATO killing civilians.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Wallaby

[BKKarim]

Some here seem to think that because the Taliban etc are killing civilians then it is ok that NATO does the same. I would have thought NATO should hold themselves above the Taliban and others and perhaps be a bit better.

Saying NATO is better than the Taliban is hardly setting a high standard.

I haven't seen anyone make that assertion that the killing of civilians is ok, I do however, hardly see a response to an article condemning the Taliban or Al Qaeda when they blow up a market or attack school children. Have a look at those threads and see how many complain. Leads me to believe that many are more concerend about bashing the west rather than the civilians.

I'm sure when the topic on the forum is about the Taliban killing innocents there will be comment on how bad they are. I'm sure any right minded person would admit that, surely, but........this topic is about NATO killing civilians.

According to his logic is it only bashing of the western world when you in a topic about "NATO air strike kills civilians" writes that there is no excuse for killing civilians.

And furthermore, according to his logic, the condemnation of NATO air strikes that kill civilians makes you almost to a Taliban member.

Edited March 7, 2011 by BKKarim

[beechguy]

Some here seem to think that because the Taliban etc are killing civilians then it is ok that NATO does the same. I would have thought NATO should hold themselves above the Taliban and others and perhaps be a bit better.

Saying NATO is better than the Taliban is hardly setting a high standard.

I haven't seen anyone make that assertion that the killing of civilians is ok, I do however, hardly see a response to an article condemning the Taliban or Al Qaeda when they blow up a market or attack school children. Have a look at those threads and see how many complain. Leads me to believe that many are more concerend about bashing the west rather than the civilians.

I'm sure when the topic on the forum is about the Taliban killing innocents there will be comment on how bad they are. I'm sure any right minded person would admit that, surely, but........this topic is about NATO killing civilians.

I have already posted on three threads about innocents getting killed by insurgents, not one negative comment was made condemning them. That's my point, no shortage of disingenuous posters here, they can only be bothered to comment if it's western military involved. Anyway, enough the the hypocrisy, time to watch tv.

[BKKarim]

Afghan president rejects U.S. apology over killings

Karzai says civilian casualties are no longer an acceptable consequence of U.S. occupation

By PATRICK QUINN, Associated Press

Afghanistan's president on Sunday rejected a U.S. apology for the mistaken killing of nine Afghan boys in a NATO air attack and said civilian casualties are no longer acceptable.

According to a statement from his office, Hamid Karzai told Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, that expressing regret was not sufficient in last week's killing of the boys, ages 12 and under, by coalition helicopters.

...

salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/06/afghanistan_karzai_rejects_us_apology/index.html

[BKKarim]

Massive protests held against US role in Afghanistan

English.news.cn 2011-03-06 19:51:59

KABUL, March 6 (Xinhua) -- Hundreds of Afghans held a massive protest against the United States in the downtown area of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, on Sunday, demanding an end of the U.S. role in Afghanistan.

Holding banners "Permanent US military bases equals permanent slavery of Afghan people", "Occupation equals killing plus destruction" in their hands, the protesters shouted "Death to America" as they marched on the downtown street.

"The involvement of the US government in Afghanistan, that has a long history of cruelty, has not improved conditions in the country, but increased corruption, poverty, murders, poppy cultivation and trafficking," says the pamphlet handed out by the Solidarity Party of Afghanistan, the organizer of the protests.

Hangama, one of the organizers, told Xinhua, "Our aim is to condemn the civilian casualties caused by U.S. troops here in Afghanistan and we don't want the American presence in our country. "

...

news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/06/c_13764111.htm

[beechguy]

Massive protests held against US role in Afghanistan

English.news.cn 2011-03-06 19:51:59

KABUL, March 6 (Xinhua) -- Hundreds of Afghans held a massive protest against the United States in the downtown area of Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, on Sunday, demanding an end of the U.S. role in Afghanistan.

Holding banners "Permanent US military bases equals permanent slavery of Afghan people", "Occupation equals killing plus destruction" in their hands, the protesters shouted "Death to America" as they marched on the downtown street.

"The involvement of the US government in Afghanistan, that has a long history of cruelty, has not improved conditions in the country, but increased corruption, poverty, murders, poppy cultivation and trafficking," says the pamphlet handed out by the Solidarity Party of Afghanistan, the organizer of the protests.

Hangama, one of the organizers, told Xinhua, "Our aim is to condemn the civilian casualties caused by U.S. troops here in Afghanistan and we don't want the American presence in our country. "

...

news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/06/c_13764111.htm

Apparently Mr. Hangama is about as intelligent as some of the posters here. If he is serious, perhaps he should pick up a weapon and go fight the Taliban. And, If they are really interested in civilian casualties, they would be insisting something be done about the insurgents who are causing most of the civilian deaths. This report says they are responsible for 2/3 of the civilian casualies, another had it up to 76% for that reporting period. Like I said before, if people are truly interested in civilian casualies they would demand that the Taliban be stopped.

http://www.aihrc.org..._Jul31_2010.pdf

Edited March 7, 2011 by beechguy

[Hawaiian]

It is inevitable that there will be civilian casualties when there is no defined battlefield and one side uses noncombatants as shields. Sooner or later there will be innocent lives lost.

Not easy to fight a war when the rules of war only apply to one side.

Harmid Karzai is upset because he and his henchmen have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar and have been told that this must stop. He is using this incident to bolster his waning support. He knows that when NATO forces are withdrawn he will have to deal with the Taliban and is trying to blame someone else for his double dealing.

[BKKarim]

Australia says Afghan boys' deaths unacceptable

SYDNEY, March 4, 2011 (AFP) - - Australia has described the deaths of nine boys killed by a coalition air strike in Afghanistan as unacceptable, and said it will raise the issue with NATO commander General David Petraeus.

Speaking from Kabul, Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said Australia would await the outcome of an investigation into the deaths of the young boys, whom local officials said were killed as they collected firewood.

...

"Any loss of civilian life in Afghanistan is wrong in itself, and furthermore, it requires a continued review of the way in which these sorts of operations are conducted," Rudd told ABC TV late Thursday.

...

au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/8954424/australia-says-afghan-boys-deaths-unacceptable/

[bonobo]

No one is saying, that I read, that is is OK to kill a child because it is accidental. But it is not "murder," as I think you posted. Murder requires purpose and intent. In my pedestrian analogy, which you seemed unable to grasp that it was an analogy, Person B, who shot the pedestrian, was gulity of pre-meditated murder. Person A, who ran over him, was guilty, but not of murder. There was no intent.

Purpose and intention?

What do you expect to happen if you drop some bombs over some area without carefully checking who might be there around and you have 64 dead civilians?

Do NATO soldier don't know that bombs kill people?

World English Dictionary murder (ˈmɜːdə)

— vb

5. ( also intr ) to kill (someone) unlawfully with premeditation or during the commission of a crime

6. to kill brutally

What a laughable argument. Do you really think that any pilot of drone operator intends to kill civilians? Do you really think that forces don't try to determine who is at the target? Do you believe that all munitions hit exactly as planned.

If you are that out of touch with reality, well, nothing I can write is going to change your mind.