Afghan civilians die in U.S. attack

[gabosaurus]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0C9913A0-F8E5-41E0-B40C-661E3450B73A.htm

US troops have killed 16 Afghan civilians after they opened fire following a car bomb attack on their convoy, US military officials have admitted.

At least 24 civilians were also wounded in the incident in the eastern province of Nangarhar.

A suicide bomber in a minivan packed with explosives rammed the convoy and armed men opened fire from different points in a "complex" attack, US officials said.

But Afghans at the scene say US troops opened fire on them indiscriminately. There were no reports of casualties among US soldiers.

Thousands of Afghans protested at the scene of the killings, blocking the main road between the Afghan capital, Kabul, and the Pakistan border and throwing rocks at police.

 

[mattskramer]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0C9913A0-F8E5-41E0-B40C-661E3450B73A.htm

US troops have killed 16 Afghan civilians after they opened fire following a car bomb attack on their convoy, US military officials have admitted.

At least 24 civilians were also wounded in the incident in the eastern province of Nangarhar.

A suicide bomber in a minivan packed with explosives rammed the convoy and armed men opened fire from different points in a "complex" attack, US officials said.

But Afghans at the scene say US troops opened fire on them indiscriminately. There were no reports of casualties among US soldiers.

Thousands of Afghans protested at the scene of the killings, blocking the main road between the Afghan capital, Kabul, and the Pakistan border and throwing rocks at police.

I feel so jaded by the news of the war. (Yawn) Another car bomb went off, more insurgents attack. We kill more of them or they kill more of us. Civilians get injured or killed in the crossfire. Okay, so I might be incorrect concerning the specific details but, in all practicality, it is the “same old same old” as some people say. If the war continues as it has been going, I imagine that I could take a 5-year nap and, by the time I wake up, little will have changed.

 

[CSM]

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0C9913A0-F8E5-41E0-B40C-661E3450B73A.htm

US troops have killed 16 Afghan civilians after they opened fire following a car bomb attack on their convoy, US military officials have admitted.

At least 24 civilians were also wounded in the incident in the eastern province of Nangarhar.

A suicide bomber in a minivan packed with explosives rammed the convoy and armed men opened fire from different points in a "complex" attack, US officials said.

But Afghans at the scene say US troops opened fire on them indiscriminately. There were no reports of casualties among US soldiers.

Thousands of Afghans protested at the scene of the killings, blocking the main road between the Afghan capital, Kabul, and the Pakistan border and throwing rocks at police.

Not exactly correct...once the 16 "opened fire" they weren't "civilians" but combatants. I suppose this is the next step after calling terrorists insurgents we need to now call them "civilians".

 

[mattskramer]

Afghanistan? Oh. With the mess happening in Iraq, I forgot about that nation. Didn’t we finish our war in Afghanistan a long time ago? It has a new ruler / government, doesn’t it? If so, then what are we still doing there?

 

[CSM]

Afghanistan? Oh. With the mess happening in Iraq, I forgot about that nation. Didn’t we finish our war in Afghanistan a long time ago? It has a new ruler / government, doesn’t it? If so, then what are we still doing there?

We are there as part of a NATO agreement under the UN auspices...otherwise we would have left long ago. I find it ironic that folks forget that security there is the responsibility of the UN and NATO and not the US.

 

[Gurdari]

Not exactly correct...once the 16 "opened fire" they weren't "civilians" but combatants. I suppose this is the next step after calling terrorists insurgents we need to now call them "civilians".

The 16 didn't open fire, the US opened fire after asuicide bomber. The 16 were in the wrong place at the wrong time (Afghanistan, anytime).

Naming conventions are tricky, how can you call someone battling an occupying army a 'terrorist' when resisting occupation is legal, and terrorism is not (when they do it).

 

[gabosaurus]

I love how everyone who gets killed in Iraq or Afghanistan suddenly becomes a "combatant" -- kids, old people, wedding guests, dogs and cows.
"That cow pointed its hoof at me! I thought it was a rifle!"

 

[Gurdari]

I love how everyone who gets killed in Iraq or Afghanistan suddenly becomes a "combatant" -- kids, old people, wedding guests, dogs and cows.
"That cow pointed its hoof at me! I thought it was a rifle!"

You are wrong, Gabosaur. That cow had no weapon, but she was offering material support to Al Qaeda in the form of milk.

 

[CSM]

You are wrong, Gabosaur. That cow had no weapon, but she was offering material support to Al Qaeda in the form of milk.

You guys are catching on! Gen Sherman, during the US Civil War certainly practiced such tactics....too bad you PC folks don't understand war!

 

[CSM]

I love how everyone who gets killed in Iraq or Afghanistan suddenly becomes a "combatant" -- kids, old people, wedding guests, dogs and cows.
"That cow pointed its hoof at me! I thought it was a rifle!"

Nice attempt at spin but that is NOT what I said. BUt then the truth has little merit or worth for you libs. You have only your agenda....sorta like the Nazis pre WW II .... the Party first!

 

[sitarro]

You are wrong, Gabosaur. That cow had no weapon, but she was offering material support to Al Qaeda in the form of milk.

How lucky for you kids, you get to be glib about serious matters such as war because it is across the world rather than down the street. The reason it is staying there is because a bunch of brave men and women have chosen to serve their country who see a need to protect our freedoms by fighting assholes there instead of here. I will certainly not judge our fighting forces that are forced to make split second, life or death decisions while fighting cowards who have no value for life and hide behind women and children.

Our guys wear the uniform of our armed forces, the cowards hide in burqas and put innocents in front of them. We could have carpet bombed the whole useless country if we would have the morals of the enemy but we are Americans and are putting our guys in harms way because of political correctness. It makes me physically ill to think they are there being judged by chicken shits here. I would rather bring them home than have every move they make filmed and misinterpreted or spun by agenda pushing shits like the treasonous garbage that flocks to the Democrat party.

 

[nukeman]

How lucky for you kids, you get to be glib about serious matters such as war because it is across the world rather than down the street. The reason it is staying there is because a bunch of brave men and women have chosen to serve their country who see a need to protect our freedoms by fighting assholes there instead of here. I will certainly not judge our fighting forces that are forced to make split second, life or death decisions while fighting cowards who have no value for life and hide behind women and children.

Our guys wear the uniform of our armed forces, the cowards hide in burqas and put innocents in front of them. We could have carpet bombed the whole useless country if we would have the morals of the enemy but we are Americans and are putting our guys in harms way because of political correctness. It makes me physically ill to think they are there being judged by chicken shits here. I would rather bring them home than have every move they make filmed and misinterpreted or spun by agenda pushing shits like the treasonous garbage that flocks to the Democrat party.

Thank you for stating the obvious to these "California conservatives" if there is such a thing....

Great post could not have said it better!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gabosaurus]

So an American military person can kill anyone and destroy anything at anytime and attribute it to military necessity. But if an opponent does the same, it is an atrocity.
You're right, I am glad I don't understand war.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Gurdari
Naming conventions are tricky, how can you call someone battling an occupying army a 'terrorist' when resisting occupation is legal, and terrorism is not (when they do it).

Gurdari...

As I have said many times, the proper place for an american soldier who invade a country that has not harmed the US in any way like Vietnam and Iraq is six feet below the ground with a bullet in the head.

I woudn’t shed a tear for this human garbage and would like to travel to Washington D.C. to urinate on their monument/graves.

This would be a mild revenge compared to all the death and destructions those SOBs brought to Vietnam, a country that never did anything against the US.

But let’s be reasonable here, buddy.

The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is completely justified, after all, that country ostensibly gave shelter to Al Qaeda.

CSM stated that the US is in Afghanistan under the auspices of the UN, but the arrangement was made AFTER the invasion of Afghanistan, the US did not seek international approval to invade Afghanistan.

And the US didn’t need any authorisation to begin with!

The UN Charter is crystal clear regarding the right of any country to self defence:

CHAPTER VII

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 51​

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations...

One can say the US was not attacked by soldiers answering to the Afghan government and the attackers were not even afghanis but this is just an attempt to muddy the waters.

Let’s not be childish here: the whole world knew the Taliban turned Afghanistan into a safe haven for Al Quaeda.

The US government was absolutely justified to hold the Afghan government responsible for any attack planned by the terrorist organisation.

To deny the right of the US to invade and occupy a country that harbored an organisation that targeted the US is sheer anti-americanism, Gurdari, gabosaurus (LOL) and matts.

Plain and simple.

Aside for gabosaurus: your name is so beautiful, Gabriella... why did you feel the need to create a new prehistoric reptile based on it? lol

 

[José]

Gurdari has raised a valid issue:

The right of any people on Earth to fight foreign invaders occupying their land.

We have already established that the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was completely justified not only by international law but by sheer common sense.

At this point in our debate, it is innevitable to ask the following question:

Do the people of a country invaded and occupied by a foreign army have the right to fight the occupation, even when this occupation is entirely justified like the american invasion of Afghanistan?

The best way to answer this quention is ask another one:

Ask yourself what you would do if your country were invaded by a country posessing a strong, irrefutable casus belli against your country.

Would you accept the foreign occupation of your country as a innevitable consequence of your government’s bad decisions in the past or would you think that the right to fight foreign invaders trumps any other considerations about the justice of the occupation?

My opinion on the afghan situation is a bit schizophrenic:

I think the occupation is entirely justified and, at the same time, I cannot deny the pashtuns of the Taliban the right to fight the foreign occupation of their country.

How can I support both rights at the same time? The right to invade and the right to fight the invasion?

I can do this because the situation in Afghanistan is not one-dimensional.

You have a country exercisizing its sacred right to self defence and, at the same time, you have a people fighting foreign invaders.

Only dumb people, super patriotic american clowns and the rabid anti american crowd look at Afghanistan and see a one-dimensional scenario.

It’s clearly a multi-dimensional one.

 

[Gurdari]

Gurdari...

The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is completely justified, after all, that country ostensibly gave shelter to Al Qaeda.

CSM stated that the US is in Afghanistan under the auspices of the UN, but the arrangement was made AFTER the invasion of Afghanistan, the US did not seek international approval to invade Afghanistan.

And the US didn’t need any authorisation to begin with!

The US only needs authorization if international law is to be obeyed. It clearly is not to be obeyed. So, I agree. However, why not respond to Afghanistan's request for evidence (since the case was a slam dunk) and avoid the war?

The UN Charter is crystal clear regarding the right of any country to self defence:

CHAPTER VII

ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 51​

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations...

One can say the US was not attacked by soldiers answering to the Afghan government and the attackers were not even afghanis but this is just an attempt to muddle the waters.

Muddy the waters? Did you read what you just wrote? Not the Afghan governments operation and the hijackers mostly were from anoter nation... seems pretty important facts when launching a war.

Let’s not be childish here: the whole world knew the Taliban turned Afghanistan into a safe haven for Al Quaeda.

The US government was absolutely justified to hold the Afghan government responsible for any attack planned by the terrorist organisation.

To deny the right of the US to invade and occupy a country that harbored an organisation that targeted the US is sheer anti-americanism, Gurdari, gabosaurus (LOL) and matts.

Plain and simple.

Plain and simple, okay. So, any nation in the US's circumstance has the very same rights, no? As I posted elsewhere, Haiti can begin a counter-terorism war against the US anytime now. So can Nicaraugua, Cuba... and that's not anit-anything, except 'anti-special treatment'.

 

[nukeman]

So an American military person can kill anyone and destroy anything at anytime and attribute it to military necessity. But if an opponent does the same, it is an atrocity.
You're right, I am glad I don't understand war.

Your statement is so assinie. No where did Starro state what you did.

If our military had carte blanche to do what they deemed nescessary than I would say this war would have been a lot shorter and a lot bloodier on their part. Our military exercises extreme restraint with what they are faced with every day....

Here I will type very slowly for you to understand. We (the US military) are held to a higher standard than the thugs that we are fighting. They (the enemy) hide behind women and children to fire thier weapons. when WE fight back WE are considerd butchers yet, THEY who hide behind women and children are just freedom fighters in your eyes. THEY blow up markets, schools, soccer fields, and hospitals and for some reason you can't differentiat between them and the US soldier who has to perfom a surgical strike so as not to injure anyone other than his target.

You are very privilaged to live where you do and be isolated from what a soldier has to endure so that you can type on your little computer..

When somoeone fires a weapon at your head or blows up the car in front of you tell me just exactly how you would respons. Now if these cowards had the balls to,

1. where a uniform
2. quit hiding behind women

maybe we could get somewhere with fighting these pathetic excuses for human biengs.



The only people to bring freedom to the mideast today is the US. now what they do with their freedom is up to them. WE are trying to put them on the right track. Hey go back to school I'm sure they have all the answers to the worlds problems in a book somewhere.

 

[Gurdari]

How lucky for you kids, you get to be glib about serious matters such as war because it is across the world rather than down the street. The reason it is staying there is because a bunch of brave men and women have chosen to serve their country who see a need to protect our freedoms by fighting assholes there instead of here. I will certainly not judge our fighting forces that are forced to make split second, life or death decisions while fighting cowards who have no value for life and hide behind women and children.

Hey Sitarro, I may be Glib sometimes, but very serious most of the time. And I do give a shit what goes on in the world, even to people who are not american. And are you living under threat of US airstrikes? Has your workplace been blown to hell? Maybe they have and you're living the war, if so I feel terrible for you. And I don't judge the soldier on the ground so harshly, as I judge the suit who asked for him to be there, in the middle of a fucked up situation.

Our guys wear the uniform of our armed forces, the cowards hide in burqas and put innocents in front of them. We could have carpet bombed the whole useless country if we would have the morals of the enemy but we are Americans and are putting our guys in harms way because of political correctness. It makes me physically ill to think they are there being judged by chicken shits here. I would rather bring them home than have every move they make filmed and misinterpreted or spun by agenda pushing shits like the treasonous garbage that flocks to the Democrat party.

Too bad you think carpet bombing is the way to go, how about leaving them the fuck alone? And calling regular non-military people chickenshits is retarded. Look at the damage the Iraqi army did to US personnel. Then look at the damage a civillian insurgency has done. What responsibility to victims of an armed inavsion have to their invaders? To fight the same way? To use their impossible meagre technology and fight out in the open against a guided missile system? Or airstrikes? More like do what you have to against a massive, superior enemy. How would you fight against an army invading your homeland? Would you take tactical advice from the invaders? Or kill them any way you could whenever you could until you died?

I'm no democrat, why do you think they give a shit about civillians anywhere either? They are just as insulated from reason, just as arrogant.

 

[Gurdari]

...when WE fight back WE are considerd butchers...

The only people to bring freedom to the mideast today is the US. now what they do with their freedom is up to them. WE are trying to put them on the right track. Hey go back to school I'm sure they have all the answers to the worlds problems in a book somewhere.

I guess the problem is that YOU are in THEIR land. Hard to convince anyone US is some kind of victim or held to a high standard, unless invading is noble.

US is trying to bring freedom? Who asked you? Overthrowing the government and rewriting laws and shutting down a newspaper, great - freedom sounds lovely.

Don't bring freedom anywhere else, please.

 

[nukeman]

I guess the problem is that YOU are in THEIR land. Hard to convince anyone US is some kind of victim or held to a high standard, unless invading is noble.

US is trying to bring freedom? Who asked you? Overthrowing the government and rewriting laws and shutting down a newspaper, great - freedom sounds lovely.

Don't bring freedom anywhere else, please.

Try getting some of your information from somewhere other than the MMM and maybe you will understand what is really happening. (talk to a soldier)

Do you even know anyone personally in the military to be able to talk to them about what they are doing over there.

Most of the "fighters" are fom Iran and Syria they aren't even from Iraq. So they have no more right by your reasoning to be there than we do. The difference is now we are trying to stop the insurgents if they would go back to their cappy little countries than we could get out....

Do you honostly believe that if we were to just walk away the Iraqi people would be safe and secure.