NATO strike kills nine in northeast Afghanistan

[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?

Your are jumping to silly conclusions.

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

Then you give me a different conclusion, based on the facts.

"Lame" in your mind, but very pertinent in others, and spot on for this thread.

If you are anti-NATO and pro-Taliban, that is your right. Just don't be disingenuous and try and hide that fact. If you truly only care about civilian casualties, and that is a laudable sentiment, then why not post to that matter instead of damning all things NATO, which at least is trying to limit civilian casualties, and ignoring threads which go after the Taliban for causing civilian casualties.

You have posted on other threads expressing your anti-Israeli views (as is your right), so we know you have not limited yourself to only this thread.

[coma]

This Afghanistan gig is ugly and after almost ten years there there is still no light at the end of the tunnel. Pull out, seal is off with the heavy use of HUMINT and standoff weapon systems to ensure they don't spread terrorism outside thier own borders and leave them to it. How many more ISAF soldiers need to die there and how many more claim [be it true or false] of civilian killings do we need to put up with before we call it a day just as we did in South Vietnam in 1975?

[BKKarim]

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.

Then you give me a different conclusion, based on the facts.

"Lame" in your mind, but very pertinent in others, and spot on for this thread.

If you are anti-NATO and pro-Taliban, that is your right. Just don't be disingenuous and try and hide that fact. If you truly only care about civilian casualties, and that is a laudable sentiment, then why not post to that matter instead of damning all things NATO, which at least is trying to limit civilian casualties, and ignoring threads which go after the Taliban for causing civilian casualties.

You have posted on other threads expressing your anti-Israeli views (as is your right), so we know you have not limited yourself to only this thread.

Now i suddenly Pro-Taliban because i do nothing more than condemn the killing of civilians here in this topic. What a logic.

[coma]

Where are the pages of condemnation in this thread? http://www.thaivisa....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.

I am quite sure that the Taliban were indeed carrying out these summary executions well before the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Prior to football matches in the Kabul stadium if my memory serves me correctly. Such vicious animals indeed. The question therefore needs to be ask/ asnwered- why do the majority of people in Afghanistan not rise up and fight the Taliban? Infact they are openly supporting them. And why are they not wholeheartedly supporting ISAF?? Just more evidence imo as to why we should withdraw, Just my observations.

[bonobo]

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.

Then you give me a different conclusion, based on the facts.

"Lame" in your mind, but very pertinent in others, and spot on for this thread.

If you are anti-NATO and pro-Taliban, that is your right. Just don't be disingenuous and try and hide that fact. If you truly only care about civilian casualties, and that is a laudable sentiment, then why not post to that matter instead of damning all things NATO, which at least is trying to limit civilian casualties, and ignoring threads which go after the Taliban for causing civilian casualties.

You have posted on other threads expressing your anti-Israeli views (as is your right), so we know you have not limited yourself to only this thread.

Now i suddenly Pro-Taliban because i do nothing more than condemn the killing of civilians here in this topic. What a logic.

Where did I write you are pro-Taliban? You seem pretty fond of dictionaries, so please look up the word "if."

All I know is that from your posted views, the only logical conclusion is that you are anti-NATO. You posted that my conclusions are "silly." So I asked you to give me another conclusion based on your posts. You haven't done so.

It seems to me that you are using this topic as a platform for your anti-NATO diatribe. And I think I am not alone in that conclusion. Despite other posters showing you the flaws in some of your logic, you refuse to address them and keep throwing out those red herrings. The problem with red herrings is, as with any fish, that they smell.

[bonobo]

Where are the pages of condemnation in this thread? http://www.thaivisa....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.

I am quite sure that the Taliban were indeed carrying out these summary executions well before the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. Prior to football matches in the Kabul stadium if my memory serves me correctly. Such vicious animals indeed. The question therefore needs to be ask/ asnwered- why do the majority of people in Afghanistan not rise up and fight the Taliban? Infact they are openly supporting them. And why are they not wholeheartedly supporting ISAF?? Just more evidence imo as to why we should withdraw, Just my observations.

While I don't necessarily agree with your base recommendation, I have to point out that there is certainly a good degree of logic in what you write. You have an opinion, and you back that up.

I might point out to certain other posters that this is the way to hold a debate in a forum, in my most humble opinion. And by debating in this way, the participants can gain another perspective which could move them in their own opinions.

[chuckd]

Now i suddenly Pro-Taliban because i do nothing more than condemn the killing of civilians here in this topic. What a logic.

DNFTT.

[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?

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.

Did i say anything like this? You are making a lot of things up here.

Please stick to what i have written and don't put words in my mouth.

One thing is that i am against the war in Afghanistan. Admitted. I think that should be a respected and accepted opinion without people treating me here like an enemy.

[geriatrickid]

One of the reasons that air attacks are utilized is because it actually avoids collateral damage and the death of non combatants. Sounds odd doesn't it? Well, the the typical method of encountering the Taliban usually means that the Taliban are using non combatants as shields, or it means that there will be a firefight in a populated area. A prudent selection of a target avoids unnecessary casualties. As an aside, I don't think some people fully appreciate the kind of people one is dealing with;

From 2006, an event that changed the way ISAF had to deal with the civilians; (Excerpted)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Sun. Mar. 5 2006 8:01 AM ET

Canadian soldiers saw a routine tribal meeting in Afghanistan turn into an ambush, with one officer critically wounded by an axe-wielding assailant. "The guy lifted up the axe, and called out Allah Akbar, the jihad prayer, before they do suicides, and he swung the axe into Trevor's head," Capt. Kevin Schamuhn, the platoon commander, told CTV News on Saturday Canadian soldiers shot and killed the attacker, who was in his 20s.

One ominous sign that no one picked up on, Schamuhn said: "About two or three minutes prior to the incident, all the children that were present were escorted away, twenty to thirty metres away. We were completely vulnerable to them and they took full advantage of that." Once the attack on Green happened, Schamuhn said: "There was a whole bunch of explosions and a pretty heavy volume of fire. It turns out we were under fire from the south of the river, which is on the adjacent bank."Later, another insurgent attempted to throw a grenade at the troops but was unsuccessful.After the firefight, Afghan and Canadian soldiers found all fighting-age men vanished from the village. All they found were old men, women and children.

Ok, does anyone notice the pattern? Non combatants are used as a shield. Had the Canadian soldiers let loose a full barrage of defending fire, the village and many of its civilians would have been wiped out. These troops had entered the village for a meeting with the leaders under a peaceful intent. Instead, they were ambushed and the village was involved. This type of event has happened to the UK and US forces as well. Now then, is it any wonder why there are civilian casualties?

[bonobo]

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.

Did i say anything like this? You are making a lot of things up here.

Please stick to what i have written and don't put words in my mouth.

One thing is that i am against the war in Afghanistan. Admitted. I think that should be a respected and accepted opinion without people treating me here like an enemy.

Once again, read the definition of the word "if."

Being against the war in Afghanistan does not make you the enemy. Many people are against it. I fought in Iraq, and like much of the senior leadership, I was against that war.

It is your lack of logic, your attitude, your refusing to address other points, and your fervently tilted tone which make other posters take issue with you.

[koheesti]

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?

Both of you are right.

It's just like the "anti-war" protesters (btw - just about all from leftist organizations) back home who carry signs against the USA but couldn't even spell Iraq when Saddam was slaughtering his own people. The whole "they're killing civilians" rhetoric is just one part of their whole schtick. Ironically enough, everytime the leftists have come into power, the first thing they do is start to kill their own civilians.

[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.

Obviously i have that repeat again and quote my own entry from page 2. For the slow people here:

There is NO EXCUSE for killing children!

No matter who kills the children, there is no excuse for it.

I don't make any excuses for the Taliban here or anyone else. I am not a troll. Unlike some others i stick to the topic.

[bonobo]

I don't make any excuses for the Taliban here or anyone else. I am not a troll. Unlike some others i stick to the topic.

Last time, then I am done. I am off to the gym, then on my way to Istanbul.

You may not be making any excuses, but you do not make an effort to criticize them, either. I have yet to see you make an appearance on the other thread. And if you effort is to cut out civilian casualties, then logic dictates that you make a post there, just as you have posts about Israel and Gen Petreaus.

And you don't understand the dynamics of threads in ThaiVisa. There is no rule which states that only the words in the OP can be used again in subsequent posts. Nothing works in a vacuum. You can't write about unrest in THailand's south without mentioning Malaysia. You can't write about China's economy without writing about US demand. You cannot write about Libya without writing on Europe's demand for Libyan oil and gas.

And you cannot write about NATO excesses without writing about the Taliban. That is part of the topic, so your accusations of straying off-topic seem little more than a feint to keep from having to justify your positions.

[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?

Both of you are right.

It's just like the "anti-war" protesters (btw - just about all from leftist organizations) back home who carry signs against the USA but couldn't even spell Iraq when Saddam was slaughtering his own people. The whole "they're killing civilians" rhetoric is just one part of their whole schtick. Ironically enough, everytime the leftists have come into power, the first thing they do is start to kill their own civilians.

Both of them are wrong.

And the topic is about a NATO Air strike in Afghanistan.

Not about Saddam, not about the Iraq or about some leftists.

[chuckd]

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?

Both of you are right.

It's just like the "anti-war" protesters (btw - just about all from leftist organizations) back home who carry signs against the USA but couldn't even spell Iraq when Saddam was slaughtering his own people. The whole "they're killing civilians" rhetoric is just one part of their whole schtick. Ironically enough, everytime the leftists have come into power, the first thing they do is start to kill their own civilians.

Both of them are wrong.

And the topic is about a NATO Air strike in Afghanistan.

Not about Saddam, not about the Iraq or about some leftists.

D N F T T.

[BKKarim]

I don't make any excuses for the Taliban here or anyone else. I am not a troll. Unlike some others i stick to the topic.

Last time, then I am done. I am off to the gym, then on my way to Istanbul.

You may not be making any excuses, but you do not make an effort to criticize them, either. I have yet to see you make an appearance on the other thread. And if you effort is to cut out civilian casualties, then logic dictates that you make a post there, just as you have posts about Israel and Gen Petreaus.

And you don't understand the dynamics of threads in ThaiVisa. There is no rule which states that only the words in the OP can be used again in subsequent posts. Nothing works in a vacuum. You can't write about unrest in THailand's south without mentioning Malaysia. You can't write about China's economy without writing about US demand. You cannot write about Libya without writing on Europe's demand for Libyan oil and gas.

And you cannot write about NATO excesses without writing about the Taliban. That is part of the topic, so your accusations of straying off-topic seem little more than a feint to keep from having to justify your positions.

Ahh, okay. There is no strict off topic rule here on ThaiVisa? That is very good to know. Thank you for that information.

But what about that i have to appear in other threads? Is it a must that i have to write in every thread that i condemn the killing of children, no matter who killed them? Is it not enough if i said that here more than often?

In one of the three other threads Beechguy bumped up i wrote a reply. Not in all of them and this guy is also somehow under the impression that Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan is all the same. Probably thinks it was done all by the Taliban but actually nobody knows who is responsible.

Here is an attitude at this board that looks down at all these so called third world countries or the Muslim countries or what they call the Arab nations.

Sometimes is better to ignore these people, IMHO.

[Ulysses G.]

You might think you can BS the rest of us, but BSing a mod who has your number is quite a different story.

[beechguy]

You might think you can BS the rest of us, but BSing a mod who has your number is quite a different story.

dam_n, I had hoped he was referring to me. Anywyay, Bonobo, did make some great points and extremely difficult to dispute in any intelligent manner.

Edited March 8, 2011 by beechguy

[BKKarim]

Did i say anything like this? You are making a lot of things up here.

Please stick to what i have written and don't put words in my mouth.

One thing is that i am against the war in Afghanistan. Admitted. I think that should be a respected and accepted opinion without people treating me here like an enemy.

Once again, read the definition of the word "if."

Being against the war in Afghanistan does not make you the enemy. Many people are against it. I fought in Iraq, and like much of the senior leadership, I was against that war.

It is your lack of logic, your attitude, your refusing to address other points, and your fervently tilted tone which make other posters take issue with you.

Lack of logic?

I certainly cannot top the logic of and higher philosophy of your arguments like in:

"I fought in Iraq, and like much of the senior leadership, I was against that war."

If i would say i am against something, i wouldn't get involved in that. Practise what you preach! they say.

[Diablo Bob]

Did i say anything like this? You are making a lot of things up here.

Please stick to what i have written and don't put words in my mouth.

One thing is that i am against the war in Afghanistan. Admitted. I think that should be a respected and accepted opinion without people treating me here like an enemy.

Once again, read the definition of the word "if."

Being against the war in Afghanistan does not make you the enemy. Many people are against it. I fought in Iraq, and like much of the senior leadership, I was against that war.

It is your lack of logic, your attitude, your refusing to address other points, and your fervently tilted tone which make other posters take issue with you.

Lack of logic?

I certainly cannot top the logic of and higher philosophy of your arguments like in:

"I fought in Iraq, and like much of the senior leadership, I was against that war."

If i would say i am against something, i wouldn't get involved in that. Practise what you preach! they say.

It is rather simple, the USA has a volunteer military, IF you have doubts about following the orders of your Commander in Chief, you don't have to volunteer. Once you are in the military you don't have the option of not being involved.

Personally, I was against the war in Vietnam, but I chose to serve, the best decision I ever made. I support the effort in Afghanistan, and have been working here for almost 9 years.

As to the original contention that these civilians were killed/murdered, allI can say is that description is a little harsh. They weren't targeted, a mistake might have been made. The locals have recognized the financial opportunity of claiming someone was killed. They don't have to produce a body, word of mouth wins them cash! We investigate, but we can't exhume a grave because it is culturally insensitive, so we have to take their word for it

Edited March 8, 2011 by Diablo Bob

[BKKarim]

Being against the war in Afghanistan does not make you the enemy. Many people are against it. I fought in Iraq, and like much of the senior leadership, I was against that war.

It is your lack of logic, your attitude, your refusing to address other points, and your fervently tilted tone which make other posters take issue with you.

Lack of logic?

I certainly cannot top the logic of and higher philosophy of your arguments like in:

"I fought in Iraq, and like much of the senior leadership, I was against that war."

If i would say i am against something, i wouldn't get involved in that. Practise what you preach! they say.

It is rather simple, the USA has a volunteer military, IF you have doubts about following the orders of your Commander in Chief, you don't have to volunteer. Once you are in the military you don't have the option of not being involved.

Personally, I was against the war in Vietnam, but I chose to serve, the best decision I ever made. I support the effort in Afghanistan, and have been working here for almost 9 years.

As to the original contention that these civilians were killed/murdered, allI can say is that description is a little harsh. They weren't targeted, a mistake might have been made. The locals have recognized the financial opportunity of claiming someone was killed. They don't have to produce a body, word of mouth wins them cash! We investigate, but we can't exhume a grave because it is culturally insensitive, so we have to take their word for it

Okay, seems that is a cultural difference that the US-American (soldiers)distinct from me.

If i say i am against something, i really really mean that and it will do anything to avoid to become a part of that what i am oppose.

I don't belief those involved who later insist they were all the time against it.

There are cash hand outs for those "accidentally" killed? How much is paid per 'body'? How often happen that?

[geriatrickid]

Friendly Fire. A low key term for a situation where the good guys fire on the good guys. Afghanistan is filled with friendly fire incidents. US air national guard units attacked Canadian Forces in Afghanistan killing 4 and wounding several men. UK . US personnel have shot and killed their own. Here is a compelling story about the Canadian friendly fire incident. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/friendlyfire/ It's not just Afghanis that die.

Here's an example from the UK, http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/3452352/Friendly-fire-paratrooper-sues-Ministry-of-Defence-for-damages.html

There is no intent to murder anyone.

[bonobo]

Being against the war in Afghanistan does not make you the enemy. Many people are against it. I fought in Iraq, and like much of the senior leadership, I was against that war.

It is your lack of logic, your attitude, your refusing to address other points, and your fervently tilted tone which make other posters take issue with you.

Lack of logic?

I certainly cannot top the logic of and higher philosophy of your arguments like in:

"I fought in Iraq, and like much of the senior leadership, I was against that war."

If i would say i am against something, i wouldn't get involved in that. Practise what you preach! they say.

It is rather simple, the USA has a volunteer military, IF you have doubts about following the orders of your Commander in Chief, you don't have to volunteer. Once you are in the military you don't have the option of not being involved.

Personally, I was against the war in Vietnam, but I chose to serve, the best decision I ever made. I support the effort in Afghanistan, and have been working here for almost 9 years.

As to the original contention that these civilians were killed/murdered, allI can say is that description is a little harsh. They weren't targeted, a mistake might have been made. The locals have recognized the financial opportunity of claiming someone was killed. They don't have to produce a body, word of mouth wins them cash! We investigate, but we can't exhume a grave because it is culturally insensitive, so we have to take their word for it

Okay, seems that is a cultural difference that the US-American (soldiers)distinct from me.

If i say i am against something, i really really mean that and it will do anything to avoid to become a part of that what i am oppose.

I don't belief those involved who later insist they were all the time against it.

There are cash hand outs for those "accidentally" killed? How much is paid per 'body'? How often happen that?

I accepted the King's shilling. THey paid for my BS, my MBA, and my Ph.D. THey paid me money over the years, and sent me to places like the Med, Norway, Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Panama, and yes, Thailand. So when I was tapped to go, I couldn't say "But no, I don't think this war is a good idea!" My obligation is to go. Mostly, I worked to rebuild the country, and I did stop a firefight where I think civilians probably would have been casualties. So I have no shame in what I have done. So you can call me a liar, if you wish (as you write when you write that you don't believe those who later insist they were against it.") but frankly, you don't know me from Adam, and I find that rather insulting.

And yes, payments are made for any civilian killed or wounded by US forces, at least, and I am sure by other NATO forces as well. Payments are also paid for property damage. As I wrote before, you don't have a clue as to the ground reality, and that is probably one reason why your arguments tend to sound so silly. And Diablo Bob is correct when he writes that proof is rarely sought. A person's claim of a death made by US forces, even if there is some evidence that the death was caused by the Taliban, is enough to get the payment.

[bonobo]

Ahh, okay. There is no strict off topic rule here on ThaiVisa? That is very good to know. Thank you for that information.

But what about that i have to appear in other threads? Is it a must that i have to write in every thread that i condemn the killing of children, no matter who killed them? Is it not enough if i said that here more than often?

In one of the three other threads Beechguy bumped up i wrote a reply. Not in all of them and this guy is also somehow under the impression that Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan is all the same. Probably thinks it was done all by the Taliban but actually nobody knows who is responsible.

Here is an attitude at this board that looks down at all these so called third world countries or the Muslim countries or what they call the Arab nations.

Sometimes is better to ignore these people, IMHO.

You don't "have" to appear in any thread you don't want. But don't be surprised when your seeming hypocrisy is called out by others when you refuse to post in a like-topic thread. You act like everyone in the world is against you. Well, you could have cut at least that one point by a simple post, but for some reason, you refused.

As far as ThaiVisa being "down on" Muslim countries or Arab nations, you obviously have not read many posts here. We have Arab and Muslim members who post, quite eruditely, I might add, and quite a few non-Muslim posters regularly take the side, so-to-speak, of the Arabs or Palestinians with regards to Middle East and Western confrontations or Middle East and Israeli confrontations..

And if any poster flames a group of people based on religion or nationality, please hit the report button. We do not allow that type of posting.

Sometimes is better to ignore these people, IMHO.

Good idea.

[BKKarim]

And yes, payments are made for any civilian killed or wounded by US forces, at least, and I am sure by other NATO forces as well. Payments are also paid for property damage. As I wrote before, you don't have a clue as to the ground reality, and that is probably one reason why your arguments tend to sound so silly. And Diablo Bob is correct when he writes that proof is rarely sought. A person's claim of a death made by US forces, even if there is some evidence that the death was caused by the Taliban, is enough to get the payment.

Secret CIA paramilitaries' role in civilian deaths

Innocent Afghan men, women and children have paid the price of the Americans' rules of engagement

...

They range from the shootings of individual innocents to the often massive loss of life from air strikes, which eventually led President Hamid Karzai to protest publicly that the US was treating Afghan lives as "cheap". When civilian family members are actually killed in Afghanistan, their relatives do, in fairness, get greater solatia payments than cans of beans and Hershey bars. The logs refer to sums paid of 100,000 Afghani per corpse, equivalent to about £1,500.

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rules-engagement

And one more time, what is the excuse for the Taliban? And it's fine with you if they intentionally attack a bus load of children?

But most of the assaults on civilians recorded here, do not appear to have been investigated. French troops "opened fire on a bus that came too close to convoy" near the village of Tangi Kalay outside Kabul on 2 October 2008, according to the logs. They wounded eight children who were in the bus.

Two months later, US troops gunned down a group of bus passengers even more peremptorily, as the logs record.

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rules-engagement

[Diablo Bob]

And yes, payments are made for any civilian killed or wounded by US forces, at least, and I am sure by other NATO forces as well. Payments are also paid for property damage. As I wrote before, you don't have a clue as to the ground reality, and that is probably one reason why your arguments tend to sound so silly. And Diablo Bob is correct when he writes that proof is rarely sought. A person's claim of a death made by US forces, even if there is some evidence that the death was caused by the Taliban, is enough to get the payment.

Secret CIA paramilitaries' role in civilian deaths

Innocent Afghan men, women and children have paid the price of the Americans' rules of engagement

...

They range from the shootings of individual innocents to the often massive loss of life from air strikes, which eventually led President Hamid Karzai to protest publicly that the US was treating Afghan lives as "cheap". When civilian family members are actually killed in Afghanistan, their relatives do, in fairness, get greater solatia payments than cans of beans and Hershey bars. The logs refer to sums paid of 100,000 Afghani per corpse, equivalent to about £1,500.

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rules-engagement

And one more time, what is the excuse for the Taliban? And it's fine with you if they intentionally attack a bus load of children?

But most of the assaults on civilians recorded here, do not appear to have been investigated. French troops "opened fire on a bus that came too close to convoy" near the village of Tangi Kalay outside Kabul on 2 October 2008, according to the logs. They wounded eight children who were in the bus.

Two months later, US troops gunned down a group of bus passengers even more peremptorily, as the logs record.

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rules-engagement

Very interesting and selective news arcticles.

On the same news day July 10 we have the following:

Children killed in Afghan blast

Tuesday, 10 July 2010 BBC News

Seventeen people, including 12 schoolchildren, have been killed in a suicide bombing in south Afghanistan, the country's interior ministry says.

Another 30 people were injured, some seriously, in the attack on a market place in Dehrawood in Uruzgan province, where Taleban militants are active.

The bomber blew himself up near a Nato-led convoy, police said.

As to your bus shootings by convoys, well anybody who has driven around Afghanistan will tell you about the trailing vehicle in a convoy. It has a BIG sign warning anybody trailing to stay back or they will be fired on. You might ask why? Car bombers, the convoys can't assume that a bus isn't being used in an act of war. They have done it before.....

[BKKarim]

One of the reasons that air attacks are utilized is because it actually avoids collateral damage and the death of non combatants. Sounds odd doesn't it? Well, the the typical method of encountering the Taliban usually means that the Taliban are using non combatants as shields, or it means that there will be a firefight in a populated area. A prudent selection of a target avoids unnecessary casualties. As an aside, I don't think some people fully appreciate the kind of people one is dealing with;

...

The Afghan village that’s been wiped from the map - with 25 tons of coalition bombs

By Lewis Bazley

Last updated at 3:36 PM on 21st January 2011

The impact of coalition operations in Afghanistan is often bogged down in statistics and political manoeuvring.

But these photos of a devastated village in the Arghandad River Valley show the horror of war in stark reality.

Tarok Kolache, a small settlement in Kandahar, has been completely erased from the map after an offensive by the U.S. army.

...

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348915/Tarok-Kolache-Afghan-village-wiped-map-25-tons-coalition-bombs.html

follow link for photo

[BKKarim]

... situation where the good guys fire on the good guys.

...

There is no intent to murder anyone.

The only survivor, Hemad, 11, said his mother had told him to go out with other boys to collect firewood because “the weather is very cold now.”

“We were almost done collecting the wood when suddenly we saw the helicopters come,” said Hemad, who, like many Afghans, has only one name. “There were two of them. The helicopters hovered over us, scanned us and we saw a green flash from the helicopters. Then they flew back high up, and in a second round they hovered over us and started shooting. They fired a rocket which landed on a tree. The tree branches fell over me and shrapnel hit my right hand and my side.”

The tree, Hemad said, saved his life by covering him so that he could not be seen by the helicopters, which, he said, “shot the boys one after another.”

...

Villagers — who heard the gunfire in the mountains and worried when the children did not return home — went to look for them. The boys had been out since the morning, local people said.

“As soon as we heard about the attack on the village’s children, all the village men rushed to the mountains to find out what really happened,” said Ashabuddin, a shopkeeper from Manogai, a nearby village, whose nephew Khalid was among those killed.

“Finally we found the dead bodies. Some of the dead bodies were really badly chopped up by the rockets,” he said. “The head of a child was missing. Others were missing limbs.”

“We tried to find the body pieces and put them together. As it was getting late, we brought down the bodies in a rope bed. We buried them in the village’s cemetery,” Ashabuddin added. “The children were all from poor families; otherwise no one would send their sons up to the mountains despite the known threats from both insurgents and Americans.”

Khalid, 14, was the only male in the family, Ashabuddin said. “He was studying in sixth grade of the orphanage school and working because his father died four years ago due to a long-term sickness. His father was a day laborer. He has 13 sisters and two mothers. He was the sole breadwinner of the family. I don’t know what would happen to his family to his sisters and mothers. They are all female and poor.”

nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html?_r=1&src=me

[BKKarim]

Very interesting and selective news arcticles.

...

As to your bus shootings by convoys, well anybody who has driven around Afghanistan will tell you about the trailing vehicle in a convoy. It has a BIG sign warning anybody trailing to stay back or they will be fired on. You might ask why? Car bombers, the convoys can't assume that a bus isn't being used in an act of war. They have done it before.....

Of course selective because they were replies and in the nature of the topic: NATO kills civilian.

£1,500 per dead body. How generous.

And shoot at everything what comes to close, could be an "insurgent" and if not it turns maybe the sole surviving family member into one because he had lost everything.

[Hawaiian]

WAR IS HELL!

Some of my friends, Viet Nam Conflict veterans, suffer from PTSD. Their reoccurring nightmares are mostly reliving the horrors of war. Most don't want to talk about it because it brings back memories they wish they could forget.

After his first tour of duty, my brother-in-law volunteered for another tour. He went back for a second time and returned home very disappointed and disillusioned. He said he just didn't have the stomach for it anymore.

The majority of the U.S. military do not enjoy killing, especially innocent people. It is virtually impossible to weed out those who won't follow the rules of engagement and/or commit atrocities. Those that do are usually caught and prosecuted, sometimes years later.

WAR IS HELL!

As one poster mentioned, you have no idea what it is like until you have been there and experienced it. Talk is cheap!

Edited March 8, 2011 by Hawaiian