NATO strike kills nine in northeast Afghanistan

[bonobo]

Some here seem to think that because the Taliban etc are killing civilians then it is ok that NATO does the same.

Please show me one post which purports this.

[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

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.

Simply. It was not the first time that civilians were killed, it happens again and again. Apparently some strategies there are prone to fail but they get still repeated over and over again.

Civilians death are often denied or there are attempts to cover them up.

That we had all only good intentions is complete bullshit.

[bonobo]

Where are the pages of condemnation in this thread? http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/448820-roadside-bomb-kills-12-civilians-in-afghanistan/

Not that what was done as related in that post makes any killing of civilians by NATO forces acceptable, but the question is still valid. But it is reasonable to point out that civilian killings by NATO members are almost always by accident, and investigations are made to determine if there was specific fault. This is done to keep further accidents from happening, or, on occasion when a killing is determined to be criminal, that the people responsible are punished.

And I also think it is reasonable to point out that what the Taliban does is a purposeful taking of civilian lives, to include summary executions. yet it is strange to see very little outcry.

[BKKarim]

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.

Maybe the problem is that war was started against some terrorist group. They should have known beforehand that they will not met a 'regular' army.

Karzai is upset because he is an Afghani and for sure not happy about when the Americans killed young boys over there.

[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.

Simply. It was not the first time that civilians were killed, it happens again and again. Apparently some strategies there are prone to fail but they get still repeated over and over again.

Civilians death are often denied or there are attempts to cover them up.

That we had all only good intentions is complete bullshit.

Please don't argue about things on which you obviously know nothing. You have no idea on if the strategies succeed or fail. The drone strikes, for example, have been extremely successful, and tend to be quite surgical in nature when compared to other forms of pursuing warfare. And when bombs or missile strikes are known to put nearby civilians at a high risk, ground troops are sent in even though that means a high percentage of military forces then become at risk.

I know of more than one case where soldiers or Marines were killed while taking targets where airstrikes could have done the job, but authorization was not given due to the proximity of civilians to the target.

And I am amazed that you still cannot admit that there is a difference in intentional murder and accidental death. Both are wrong, but show me any society which treats them the same. If you were the judge, would you mete out the same punishment who someone who shoots a man in the head as someone who drives drunk and kills someone? But to use your argument from above, anyone who drives drunks should know that they can kill someone, just as a bomber pilot knows his bombs can kill someone.

[bonobo]

Maybe the problem is that war was started against some terrorist group. They should have known beforehand that they will not met a 'regular' army.

Of course that is true. But what are the options? Let them do as they may because they won't fight by the Marquess of Queensberry rules?

[BKKarim]

Where are the pages of condemnation in this thread? thaivisa.com/forum/topic/448820-roadside-bomb-kills-12-civilians-in-afghanistan

There is a difference when some terrorists kill civilians or when its done by some regular army force from the west who declared themselves to the heroes of freedom, the good guys, the white knights who bring peace and stability and so on but in reality the result of their mission is nothing more than more destruction, civilians sufferings and children death.

Not that what was done as related in that post makes any killing of civilians by NATO forces acceptable, but the question is still valid. But it is reasonable to point out that civilian killings by NATO members are almost always by accident, and investigations are made to determine if there was specific fault. This is done to keep further accidents from happening, or, on occasion when a killing is determined to be criminal, that the people responsible are punished.

Punishment?

Soldier given jail sentence for Afghan civilian death

Friday 4th March, 2011

A US soldier has been sentenced by a military court for sport killing in Afghanistan.

The soldier had been charged with killing Afghan civilians and mutilating their corpses.

A US military judge, finding Specialist Corey Moore, 22, guilty of serious misconduct, has sentenced him to 60 days hard labor.

...

story.albuquerqueexpress.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/89d96798a39564bd/id/751351/cs/1/

US soldier gets 9 months for killing Afghan civilians

(AFP) – Dec 1, 2010

JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Washington — A US soldier was sentenced to nine months in prison after pleading guilty to shooting at Afghan civilians.

Staff Sergeant Robert Stevens, 25, also was demoted to the rank of private but was spared discharge from the military under the sentence handed down in the first court martial linked to a rogue army unit alleged to have killed Afghans for sport.

...

google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ib_Uf6f2hd7beNdGggYqmPQjpSkQ?docId=CNG.332e0fa3bbcae3d00e16077499c32fb1.451

[BKKarim]

Please don't argue about things on which you obviously know nothing. You have no idea on if the strategies succeed or fail. The drone strikes, for example, have been extremely successful, and tend to be quite surgical in nature when compared to other forms of pursuing warfare. And when bombs or missile strikes are known to put nearby civilians at a high risk, ground troops are sent in even though that means a high percentage of military forces then become at risk.

Success? Surgical? Extremely?

Pakistan: unlawful US drone war kills 140 innocent civilians for 1 CIA-alleged terrorist

Pakistan’s government reported US drones killed only civilians in 39 of 44 attacks on their country in 2009; with over 700 innocent civilians killed, according to Pakistan's most widely-read English newspaper. Pakistan has repeatedly publicly denounced the US attacks, making the US guilty of War Crimes as they do not have explicit permission from Pakistan’s government.

...

xaminer.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/pakistan-unlawful-us-drone-war-kills-140-innocent-civilians-for-1-cia-alleged-terrorist

[bonobo]

Where are the pages of condemnation in this thread? thaivisa.com/forum/topic/448820-roadside-bomb-kills-12-civilians-in-afghanistan

There is a difference when some terrorists kill civilians or when its done by some regular army force from the west who declared themselves to the heroes of freedom, the good guys, the white knights who bring peace and stability and so on but in reality the result of their mission is nothing more than more destruction, civilians sufferings and children death.

?????? Really? This is how you wish to be known?

A Taliban cutting off the head of a teacher who dares to teach women but who does it to purify Islam (as her sees it, at least) is on a higher plane than an airman who is trying to do the right thing by the Afghan people but whose lack of skill or faulty input causes civilian casualties? And generally, the result if the mission does hit the target and nothing else, so don't lump all effects together with where things go wrong.

Not that what was done as related in that post makes any killing of civilians by NATO forces acceptable, but the question is still valid. But it is reasonable to point out that civilian killings by NATO members are almost always by accident, and investigations are made to determine if there was specific fault. This is done to keep further accidents from happening, or, on occasion when a killing is determined to be criminal, that the people responsible are punished.

Punishment?

Soldier given jail sentence for Afghan civilian death

Friday 4th March, 2011

A US soldier has been sentenced by a military court for sport killing in Afghanistan.

The soldier had been charged with killing Afghan civilians and mutilating their corpses.

A US military judge, finding Specialist Corey Moore, 22, guilty of serious misconduct, has sentenced him to 60 days hard labor.

...

story.albuquerqueexpress.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/89d96798a39564bd/id/751351/cs/1/

US soldier gets 9 months for killing Afghan civilians

(AFP) – Dec 1, 2010

JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Washington — A US soldier was sentenced to nine months in prison after pleading guilty to shooting at Afghan civilians.

Staff Sergeant Robert Stevens, 25, also was demoted to the rank of private but was spared discharge from the military under the sentence handed down in the first court martial linked to a rogue army unit alleged to have killed Afghans for sport.

...

google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ib_Uf6f2hd7beNdGggYqmPQjpSkQ?docId=CNG.332e0fa3bbcae3d00e16077499c32fb1.451

Sometimes the punishment is too light, in my opinion. But there is more to the case of Staff Sergeant Stevens, and others are going to receive stiffer sentences.

Go to Leavenworth and see how many military personnel are serving long-term sentences. They don't all get slaps on the wrist.

[bonobo]

Please don't argue about things on which you obviously know nothing. You have no idea on if the strategies succeed or fail. The drone strikes, for example, have been extremely successful, and tend to be quite surgical in nature when compared to other forms of pursuing warfare. And when bombs or missile strikes are known to put nearby civilians at a high risk, ground troops are sent in even though that means a high percentage of military forces then become at risk.

Success? Surgical? Extremely?

Pakistan: unlawful US drone war kills 140 innocent civilians for 1 CIA-alleged terrorist

Pakistan's government reported US drones killed only civilians in 39 of 44 attacks on their country in 2009; with over 700 innocent civilians killed, according to Pakistan's most widely-read English newspaper. Pakistan has repeatedly publicly denounced the US attacks, making the US guilty of War Crimes as they do not have explicit permission from Pakistan's government.

...

xaminer.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/pakistan-unlawful-us-drone-war-kills-140-innocent-civilians-for-1-cia-alleged-terrorist

Read the real reports, not some quote from someone in the Pakistan "government." How many Taliban leaders and Al Qeda leaders have been taken out by drones, even as having been admitted by their own websites? Rather hard to count up all those leaders killed if only 5 missiles hit their intended targets.

[BKKarim]

Where are the pages of condemnation in this thread? thaivisa.com/forum/topic/448820-roadside-bomb-kills-12-civilians-in-afghanistan

There is a difference when some terrorists kill civilians or when its done by some regular army force from the west who declared themselves to the heroes of freedom, the good guys, the white knights who bring peace and stability and so on but in reality the result of their mission is nothing more than more destruction, civilians sufferings and children death.

?????? Really? This is how you wish to be known?

A Taliban cutting off the head of a teacher who dares to teach women but who does it to purify Islam (as her sees it, at least) is on a higher plane than an airman who is trying to do the right thing by the Afghan people but whose lack of skill or faulty input causes civilian casualties? And generally, the result if the mission does hit the target and nothing else, so don't lump all effects together with where things go wrong.

This topic is about NATO troops killing civilians in Afghanistan. That is wrong and that is to condemn.

That the taliban commit also atrocities changes nothing about it. period.

[tw25rw]

The Nato countries feel there is no choice but to be there to fight the Taliban. The alternative is to allow them to take power and give shelter to maniacal terrorist organisations who would commit atrocities in the West and the Muslim world. They did it before and will do it again.

Slightly OT.. I used to work with an Afghani girl of Persian extraction. She told me they left the country after Taliban came to her school and took aside any girls not wearing veils and said they would come back the next day and shoot any who still weren't wearing them.

[bonobo]

Where are the pages of condemnation in this thread? thaivisa.com/forum/topic/448820-roadside-bomb-kills-12-civilians-in-afghanistan

There is a difference when some terrorists kill civilians or when its done by some regular army force from the west who declared themselves to the heroes of freedom, the good guys, the white knights who bring peace and stability and so on but in reality the result of their mission is nothing more than more destruction, civilians sufferings and children death.

?????? Really? This is how you wish to be known?

A Taliban cutting off the head of a teacher who dares to teach women but who does it to purify Islam (as her sees it, at least) is on a higher plane than an airman who is trying to do the right thing by the Afghan people but whose lack of skill or faulty input causes civilian casualties? And generally, the result if the mission does hit the target and nothing else, so don't lump all effects together with where things go wrong.

This topic is about NATO troops killing civilians in Afghanistan. That is wrong and that is to condemn.

That the taliban commit also atrocities changes nothing about it. period.

The why are you going on about "when some terrorist kill people" to dam_n NATO forces?

You cannot take the killing of civilians in a vacuum. And it is eminently reasonable to write that NATO forces try to minimize civilian casualties, just as it is eminently reasonable to point out that the virulently anti-NATO posters say nothing about the far worse case of Taliban-instigated killing of civilians. It seems rather hypocritical to dam_n NATO for not keeping civilian casualties to zero (something probably never done in the annals of warfare) yet ignore the other part of the equation.

In my opinion, you have made two reasonable arguments: that killing of civilians is bad, and that the punishments meted out to at least two soldiers is light. In my humble opinion, the rest of your arguments are either extremely illogical or just plain wrong.

Just my opinion, and now I am going to bed.

[BKKarim]

Success? Surgical? Extremely?

Pakistan: unlawful US drone war kills 140 innocent civilians for 1 CIA-alleged terrorist

Pakistan's government reported US drones killed only civilians in 39 of 44 attacks on their country in 2009; with over 700 innocent civilians killed, according to Pakistan's most widely-read English newspaper. Pakistan has repeatedly publicly denounced the US attacks, making the US guilty of War Crimes as they do not have explicit permission from Pakistan's government.

...

xaminer.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/pakistan-unlawful-us-drone-war-kills-140-innocent-civilians-for-1-cia-alleged-terrorist

Read the real reports, not some quote from someone in the Pakistan "government." How many Taliban leaders and Al Qeda leaders have been taken out by drones, even as having been admitted by their own websites? Rather hard to count up all those leaders killed if only 5 missiles hit their intended targets.

What are "real" reports for you? Only those by good US-american soldiers meanwhile what some people in Pakistan say is worthless or what?

The government in Pakistan is even an ally of The USA. An ally Lady Clinton is so proud to have on their side.

US, Pakistan Underreport Civilian Deaths in Drone War

Report Shows Major Civilian Toll

by Jason Ditz, December 09, 2010

Of those killed in US drone strikes against North Waziristan, how many are civilians? It is a question without an answer, but a new report by a Pakistani NGO suggests that the answer is “most of them.”

The report revealed that among the 84 people killed in November’s US drone strikes the vast majority were local tribesmen with no apparent militant ties. Even among the apparent militants killed, there were no high profile killings reported.

This stands in start contrast to the media coverage of the attacks, which usually begins and ends with a statement by unnamed Pakistani officials terming everyone killed a “suspected terrorist.” The suspicion, however, seems based exclusively on the fact that they got hit with a drone, and the group claims that the US and Pakistan are deliberately trying to keep reports of civilian deaths out of the public eye.

...

news.antiwar.com/2010/12/09/report-shows-major-civilian-toll-in-us-drone-war-in-pakistan/

[BKKarim]

The Nato countries feel there is no choice but to be there to fight the Taliban. The alternative is to allow them to take power and give shelter to maniacal terrorist organisations who would commit atrocities in the West and the Muslim world. They did it before and will do it again.

Slightly OT.. I used to work with an Afghani girl of Persian extraction. She told me they left the country after Taliban came to her school and took aside any girls not wearing veils and said they would come back the next day and shoot any who still weren't wearing them.

There are not much international terrorists in Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda cell seems to be all over the globe and those who planned and did the terror acts in NY, London, Madrid were definitely not based in Afghanistan.

[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.

Maybe the problem is that war was started against some terrorist group. They should have known beforehand that they will not met a 'regular' army.

Karzai is upset because he is an Afghani and for sure not happy about when the Americans killed young boys over there.

Once Kabul was taken from the Taliban and Karzai installed as president he personally invited NATO to Afghanistan to get rid of Al Queda. He knew what the risks were. He knew that there might be unintended consequences. Karzai is an opportunist and will join whichever camp that will keep him in power. Did he not recently threaten to forgo the political process and join the Taliban? Not once, but twice. Enough said.

[BKKarim]

... the virulently anti-NATO posters ...

virulently

vir·u·lent (vîry-lnt, vîr-)

adj.

1.

a. Extremely infectious, malignant, or poisonous. Used of a disease or toxin.

b. Capable of causing disease by breaking down protective mechanisms of the host. Used of a pathogen.

2. Bitterly hostile or antagonistic; hateful

That is what you call me when i dare to condemn the killing of Afghani civilians by NATO troops?

[BKKarim]

Once Kabul was taken from the Taliban and Karzai installed as president he personally invited NATO to Afghanistan to get rid of Al Queda. He knew what the risks were. He knew that there might be unintended consequences. Karzai is an opportunist and will join whichever camp that will keep him in power. Did he not recently threaten to forgo the political process and join the Taliban? Not once, but twice. Enough said.

If you have respect for the Afghani people, their government, build up with free elections after the NATO troops restored 'freedom' you can certainly not mock about his reaction on these 'accidents'.

What you would expect an Afghani President to do in that case?

You can certainly not really blame Karzei for these 'accidents' that left these civilians dead, you can him also certainly not blame that he get little bit upset about it and is not amused.

You can him also certainly not blame that he called it unacceptable and everything must be done that such 'accidents' aren't happen again. The Australian Foreign Minister called it unacceptable too.

Karzei is also quite right when he says that such 'accidents' main reason for tension in relations between Afghanistan and United States.

You could criticize Karzei for other things and even mock up, but i would say not in this situation. Not if you respect the Afghani people and their anger and grief about this.

Join the Taliban?

For the further peace process and the coming years it looks like the must be found a solution that includes talks and participation of the insurgents to have a chance of success.

[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

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.

aihrc.org.af/2010_eng/Eng_pages/Reports/Thematic/Civilian_Casualities_Jan_Jul31_2010.pdf

Its an understandable and normal reaction by those protester. What you expect?

Why do you add insults here?

[bonobo]

Success? Surgical? Extremely?

Pakistan: unlawful US drone war kills 140 innocent civilians for 1 CIA-alleged terrorist

Pakistan's government reported US drones killed only civilians in 39 of 44 attacks on their country in 2009; with over 700 innocent civilians killed, according to Pakistan's most widely-read English newspaper. Pakistan has repeatedly publicly denounced the US attacks, making the US guilty of War Crimes as they do not have explicit permission from Pakistan's government.

...

xaminer.com/la-county-nonpartisan-in-los-angeles/pakistan-unlawful-us-drone-war-kills-140-innocent-civilians-for-1-cia-alleged-terrorist

Read the real reports, not some quote from someone in the Pakistan "government." How many Taliban leaders and Al Qeda leaders have been taken out by drones, even as having been admitted by their own websites? Rather hard to count up all those leaders killed if only 5 missiles hit their intended targets.

What are "real" reports for you? Only those by good US-american soldiers meanwhile what some people in Pakistan say is worthless or what?

The government in Pakistan is even an ally of The USA. An ally Lady Clinton is so proud to have on their side.

US, Pakistan Underreport Civilian Deaths in Drone War

Report Shows Major Civilian Toll

by Jason Ditz, December 09, 2010

Of those killed in US drone strikes against North Waziristan, how many are civilians? It is a question without an answer, but a new report by a Pakistani NGO suggests that the answer is "most of them."

The report revealed that among the 84 people killed in November's US drone strikes the vast majority were local tribesmen with no apparent militant ties. Even among the apparent militants killed, there were no high profile killings reported.

This stands in start contrast to the media coverage of the attacks, which usually begins and ends with a statement by unnamed Pakistani officials terming everyone killed a "suspected terrorist." The suspicion, however, seems based exclusively on the fact that they got hit with a drone, and the group claims that the US and Pakistan are deliberately trying to keep reports of civilian deaths out of the public eye.

...

news.antiwar.com/2010/12/09/report-shows-major-civilian-toll-in-us-drone-war-in-pakistan/

A "real" report is not necessarily one made by a spokesperson of an NGO. I have many NGO friends, and while I admire them, they often tilt the truth one way or the other to their own purposes, usually with all good intentions.

[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.

aihrc.org.af/2010_eng/Eng_pages/Reports/Thematic/Civilian_Casualities_Jan_Jul31_2010.pdf

Its an understandable and normal reaction by those protester. What you expect?

Why do you add insults here?

No insult, just a statement of fact. If those people are serious about reducing civilian casualties they should be protesting and taking action against the root of the problem, the Taliban. No Taliban attacks, no rocket or bomb attacks by ISAF forces.

[bonobo]

... the virulently anti-NATO posters ...

virulently

vir·u·lent (vîry-lnt, vîr-)

adj.

1.

a. Extremely infectious, malignant, or poisonous. Used of a disease or toxin.

b. Capable of causing disease by breaking down protective mechanisms of the host. Used of a pathogen.

2. Bitterly hostile or antagonistic; hateful

That is what you call me when i dare to condemn the killing of Afghani civilians by NATO troops?

Uh, I know what the word means--I used it, after all. And I am so glad you have learned how to use a dictionary and can post what you find here so the one other poster who didn't have a firm grasp if the meaning had it clarified.

I also like when you keep throwing up red herrings. I have also written that the killing of Afghani civilians by NATO troops is lamentable and wrong. I wrote that I agreed with your statement in that. But you are like a terrier with a bone, You can't just let something go once you have it in your brain.

Despite your ego, I was referring to more posters than just you. And I was referring to the anti-NATO stance you and some others have taken ('invaders," "occupiers." ring a bell? How about "murder?" Sounds hateful and antagonistic to me.) I was not referring to your opinion, which coincides with the expressed opinion of each poster here, that killing of civilians is a bad thing.

[Wallaby]

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.

aihrc.org.af/2010_eng/Eng_pages/Reports/Thematic/Civilian_Casualities_Jan_Jul31_2010.pdf

Its an understandable and normal reaction by those protester. What you expect?

Why do you add insults here?

No insult, just a statement of fact. If those people are serious about reducing civilian casualties they should be protesting and taking action against the root of the problem, the Taliban. No Taliban attacks, no rocket or bomb attacks by ISAF forces.

Why? We have more say, as voters, of what our own government is doing. That doesn't mean we agree with what the Taliban are doing. Are you saying we shouldn't hold NATO to account and only comment on the Taliban?

This thread isn't about that, it's about NATO.

[beechguy]

NATO and the ISAF are being held accountable. But, if people are really concerend about civilian casualties they should be concerend about the root of the problem.

The fact that some posters only complain about civilian casualties caused by western forces, leads me to believe some posters are more interested in bashing the west. That would make them disingenuous and hypocritical.

I have already postted on three easily found topics of insurgent violence and there was not one negative comment, looks to me people are using a double standard.

Edited March 8, 2011 by beechguy

[BKKarim]

...

And I was referring to the anti-NATO stance you and some others have taken ('invaders," "occupiers." ring a bell? How about "murder?" Sounds hateful and antagonistic to me.)

So what is your word for the "invasion" in Afghanistan or the "occupation" of it?

And what is the "intention" behind of dropping a bomb, launching an air strike, sending a drone to attack?

[bonobo]

NATO and the ISAF are being held accountable. But, if people are really concerend about civilian casualties they should be concerend about the root of the problem.

The fact that some posters only complain about civilian casualties caused by western forces, leads me to believe some posters are more interested in bashing the west. That would make them disingenuous and hypocritical.

Makes logical sense to me.

I note that none of the anti-NATO posters here have yet to go to the other thread on civilian killings in Afghanistan, despite the link being posted here, to make a statement there.

Forgive me if I am jumping to conclusions, but the only logical reason for that is that the posters here care more about bashing NATO than civilians being killed. I hope I am wrong, but what other conclusion can we reach?

[bonobo]

...

And I was referring to the anti-NATO stance you and some others have taken ('invaders," "occupiers." ring a bell? How about "murder?" Sounds hateful and antagonistic to me.)

So what is your word for the "invasion" in Afghanistan or the "occupation" of it?

And what is the "intention" behind of dropping a bomb, launching an air strike, sending a drone to attack?

The "intention" is to kill the target, as is the intention of using any weapon.

Tell me this: do you really think that the pilot of helicopter gunship which killed those boys really wanted to kill them? That the military leadership wanted to kill them? That there was intent to kill them, them being young boys gathering firewood, and not intent to kill what he or she thought were belligerents?

This was an accident, a lamentable accident. And if the investigation reveals that proper procedure was not met, then someone needs to be held accountable.

But if you believe or contend that pilot wanted to kill those boys, then you are either too far gone in your thought process or you just enjoy making outlandish statements to make any further attempt at posting in response to you.

[beechguy]

...

And I was referring to the anti-NATO stance you and some others have taken ('invaders," "occupiers." ring a bell? How about "murder?" Sounds hateful and antagonistic to me.)

So what is your word for the "invasion" in Afghanistan or the "occupation" of it?

And what is the "intention" behind of dropping a bomb, launching an air strike, sending a drone to attack?

I would guess 99.99% of the people would correctly think dropping a bomb or other ordnance was to kill the enemy(Taliban/Al Qaeda in this case), a fact that continually escapes the .01%. Unfortunately, some civilians are often in the same area. On the other hand, another fact the .01% ignore, is that the Taliban intentionally targets the civilians causing 2/3's of those casulties. If you are really interested in reducing civilian casualies, why don't you insist that the Taliban quit attacking markets and school children.

Edited March 8, 2011 by beechguy

[BKKarim]

NATO and the ISAF are being held accountable. But, if people are really concerend about civilian casualties they should be concerend about the root of the problem.

The fact that some posters only complain about civilian casualties caused by western forces, leads me to believe some posters are more interested in bashing the west. That would make them disingenuous and hypocritical.

Makes logical sense to me.

I note that none of the anti-NATO posters here have yet to go to the other thread on civilian killings in Afghanistan, despite the link being posted here, to make a statement there.

Forgive me if I am jumping to conclusions, but the only logical reason for that is that the posters here care more about bashing NATO than civilians being killed. I hope I am wrong, but what other conclusion can we reach?

Your are jumping to silly conclusions.

A lame attempt to discredit criticism and drag the topic away.

[beechguy]

NATO and the ISAF are being held accountable. But, if people are really concerend about civilian casualties they should be concerend about the root of the problem.

The fact that some posters only complain about civilian casualties caused by western forces, leads me to believe some posters are more interested in bashing the west. That would make them disingenuous and hypocritical.

Makes logical sense to me.

I note that none of the anti-NATO posters here have yet to go to the other thread on civilian killings in Afghanistan, despite the link being posted here, to make a statement there.

Forgive me if I am jumping to conclusions, but the only logical reason for that is that the posters here care more about bashing NATO than civilians being killed. I hope I am wrong, but what other conclusion can we reach?

Yea, well I think this guy has pretty much beyond doubt proven himself to be a troll.

Edited March 8, 2011 by beechguy