78 Afghani civillians killed by U.S.

[The_Prince]

KABUL, Afghanistan – Scores of Afghan civilians who had gathered in a small village for the memorial ceremony of a militia commander were killed when U.S. and Afghan soldiers launched an attack in the middle of the night, officials and villagers said Saturday.

President Hamid Karzai condemned the early Friday operation in western Afghanistan and said most of the dead were civilians. The U.S. coalition, however, said it believed only five civilians were among those killed and said that it would investigate the Afghan claims.

An Afghan human rights group that visited the site of the operation said Saturday that at least 78 people were killed. The Ministry of Interior has said 76 civilians died, including 50 children under the age of 15, though the Ministry of Defense said 25 militants and five civilians were killed.

http://news.yahoo.com/story//ap/2008...fghan_violence

offcourse most westerners wont care, including those on this forum who go on about the 'Islamic' threat 24-7 and who enjoy lecturing Muslims on human rights.

[Muezzin]

This is extremely sad news. May Allah grant the dead paradise.

offcourse most westerners wont care, including those on this forum who go on about the 'Islamic' threat 24-7 and who enjoy lecturing Muslims on human rights.

Let's not turn this into mudslinging, now.

[Whatsthepoint]

It's sad. The US and the rest should have never gotten into this. They achieved nothing, they found no Al-Qaeda VIP, the society and the laws are still taliban, so many people died on both sides, and the financial loss is sky high.

[Keltoi]

It's sad. The US and the rest should have never gotten into this. They achieved nothing, they found no Al-Qaeda VIP, the society and the laws are still taliban, so many people died on both sides, and the financial loss is sky high.

They achieved their objective actually, which was to end the Taliban regime and stop Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and their training camps. Capturing VIPs is a bonus and still an objective, but what was done to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was much more disruptive than capturing or killing VIPs.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[ahsan28]

They achieved their objective actually

Killing of civilians?

[The_Prince]

They achieved their objective actually, which was to end the Taliban regime and stop Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and their training camps. Capturing VIPs is a bonus and still an objective, but what was done to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was much more disruptive than capturing or killing VIPs.

oh yes so succesful that all the camps have simply moved to the border and are operating as they were before. on top of that there is a pakistani taliban now which is in control of large areas of Pakistan near the border area, and these guys harbor 'Al-Qaeda' members just like before in Afghanistan.

on top of that the Afghani Taliban are regaining their control and getting stronger by the day.

[The_Prince]

Killing of civilians?

yes, and installing a puppet regime, and being able to build the gas pipeline they always wanted, plus control of the largest poppy fields in the world.

[usman2468]

They achieved their objective actually, which was to end the Taliban regime and stop Afghanistan from being a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and their training camps. Capturing VIPs is a bonus and still an objective, but what was done to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was much more disruptive than capturing or killing VIPs.

Oh yes of course have. Not only have they succeeded in raising support for taliban and forced many muslims in Afghanistan to turn to extremism but they actually succeeded in spreading the taliban culture to tribal areas of Pakistan causing suicide attacks and all that rubbish across Pakistan.

And oh! Did I mention that they also succeeded in converting a war torn country into rubble and kill thousands of innocent civilians.

But of course! Why would US care about all these people as long as the succeed in their aim.

...end Taliban regime... well actually it should become "end US regime" else US state terrorism could well expand to Iran and Pakistan

[Keltoi]

yes, and installing a puppet regime, and being able to build the gas pipeline they always wanted, plus control of the largest poppy fields in the world.

:D Control of poppy fields? The U.S. tried to spray all the poppy fields but soon figured out that it was only adding to the problem as many Afghans are economically dependant upon those fields. Until Afghanistan improves its economic infrastructure the poppy fields are a big part of the economy.

[Keltoi]

oh yes so succesful that all the camps have simply moved to the border and are operating as they were before. on top of that there is a pakistani taliban now which is in control of large areas of Pakistan near the border area, and these guys harbor 'Al-Qaeda' members just like before in Afghanistan.

on top of that the Afghani Taliban are regaining their control and getting stronger by the day.

Yes, the problem still exists in Pakistan. However, it is harder to operate in those regions. At least as a global terrorist network.

As for the Taliban, we have been hearing over and over how powerful they are getting and how they are ready to take over for about 5 years now. Its not going to happen. Especially since the U.S. will send more resources there in the next year or two when the Iraqi drawdown starts.

[usman2468]

Why don't the US just leave Muslim lands and stop their state terrorism because their terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq is not yielding any results except that it is causing people to add to the ranks of taliban and alqaida.

This is a war that cannot be won with guns and bombs but the matters can only be settled by negotiations. Only if the US had considered negotiating with Taliban and Al Qaida there was a good chance that a lot of bloodshed could have been prevented.

Tell me. What did the US get out of this war except creating more enemies and crushing their own economy

[aamirsaab]

An Afghan human rights group that visited the site of the operation said Saturday that at least 78 people were killed. The Ministry of Interior has said 76 civilians died, including 50 children under the age of 15, though the Ministry of Defense said 25 militants and five civilians were killed.

So young....:cry:

[waji]

Nothing New
American killing and Peoples neglecting it as nothing happened
but
Taliban kills any armed soldier than everyone's eyebrow get high

[usman2468]

yeah...that's all the magic of media propaganda

[ahsan28]

As for the Taliban, we have been hearing over and over how powerful they are getting and how they are ready to take over for about 5 years now. Its not going to happen. Especially since the U.S. will send more resources there in the next year or two when the Iraqi drawdown starts.

Talibans are not aiming at getting the rule or joining hands with the current puppet regime. They are simply resisting the foreign occupation, which is their legitimate right.

As for increase in the existing manning levels in Afghanistan, that would provide more oppertunities to the Talibans to take on their enemy. Increase in troops to ground ratio sometimes proves counter-productive, since it becomes added burden on logistics. Meeting logististical requirements in Afghanistan has already become a nightmare for the US and NATO. We should know, everything can't be transported through air, so the reliance has to be on road movements, which are already proving fatal for the invaders.

Ask Karzai, why doesn't he get out of his heavily fortified palace for the morning/evening walk and you will get the correct answer.

[Keltoi]

Talibans are not aiming at getting the rule or joining hands with the current puppet regime. They are simply resisting the foreign occupation, which is their legitimate right.

As for increase in the existing manning levels in Afghanistan, that would provide more oppertunities to the Talibans to take on their enemy. Increase in troops to ground ratio sometimes proves counter-productive, since it becomes added burden on logistics. Meeting logististical requirements in Afghanistan has already become a nightmare for the US and NATO. We should know, everything can't be transported through air, so the reliance has to be on road movements, which are already proving fatal for the invaders.

Ask Karzai, why doesn't he get out of his heavily fortified palace for the morning/evening walk and you will get the correct answer.

The Taliban isn't interested in regaining the control that they lost? I somehow doubt they would agree with that assessment. Of course they would like to regain power.

As for sending more resources to Afghanistan, I don't see how that could be counter-productive either. The Taliban can't fight the Coalition military that is there. At least not militarily. The issue with lack of resources is maintaining the security in an area after the Taliban has fled a particular area. Meaning the Taliban is defeated, the U.S. or British forces hang around for awhile and then have to move on to another location. Then the Taliban will return and the cycle starts again. With more resources the military can maintain combat effectiveness in more locations at once. You do realize that the U.S. military only has about 15,000 to 20,000 combat troops in Afghanistan at the moment? The Afghan National Army has more troops than the U.S. military right now.

[ahsan28]

The Taliban isn't interested in regaining the control that they lost? I somehow doubt they would agree with that assessment. Of course they would like to regain power.

As for sending more resources to Afghanistan, I don't see how that could be counter-productive either. The Taliban can't fight the Coalition military that is there. At least not militarily. The issue with lack of resources is maintaining the security in an area after the Taliban has fled a particular area. Meaning the Taliban is defeated, the U.S. or British forces hang around for awhile and then have to move on to another location. Then the Taliban will return and the cycle starts again. With more resources the military can maintain combat effectiveness in more locations at once. You do realize that the U.S. military only has about 15,000 to 20,000 combat troops in Afghanistan at the moment? The Afghan National Army has more troops than the U.S. military right now.

At the moment, Talibans are busy fighting against foreign occupation. Regaining power isn't their priority objective, that could easily be achieved after withdrawl of invaders, may it be a decade later.

Agreed, Talibans can't fight regular forces in a conventional manner, yet they have made sure that the momentum of small actions involving raids and ambushes along the lines of communication continue, which is their significant achievement. If you scan US and British mainstream media, you would know that Taliban attacks have increased by 40%, which shows their resolve and the will to fight againt a coalition, which is equipped with state-of-the-art weapon systems including fighter aircrafts and gunships. Past few months suggest that casualties of US and NATO in Afghanistan were more than the ones suffered by them in Iraq. One of the biggest factors contributing towards Taliban's unabated resistance is indiscriminate killings of Afghans by the coalition. One innocent Afghan dead means joining of entire family with Talibans. So Talibans would continue getting popular support and keep increasing their numbers. Another important factor adding miseries to coalition is the influx of Chechen, Pakistani, Uzbek and Arab fighters, which has helped increase Taliban's military precision, including an ambush by 100 fighters last week that killed 10 French soldiers, and a rush on a US outpost last month by 200 Talibans that killed nine American soldiers.

Mere increase in numbers wouldn't help coalition in achieveing major successes against Talibans, however may contribute towards protection of their bases in a slightly better manner, when they go out for operations. The impact of suggested increase in numbers by the field commanders will be seen in next 2-3 years. At present, it would be rather premature to comment.

[Keltoi]

At the moment, Talibans are busy fighting against foreign occupation. Regaining power isn't their priority objective, that could easily be achieved after withdrawl of invaders, may it be a decade later.

The Taliban gained power through conquest. In order to regain power they would have to kill a large number of Afghans in the process. The Taliban's desire to "fight the invaders" isn't a desire held by most Afghans. They just want peace and overall improvement in their lives. That should be a focus of the Afghan government and the Coalition.

Mere increase in numbers wouldn't help coalition in achieveing major successes against Talibans, however may contribute towards protection of their bases in a slightly better manner, when they go out for operations. The impact of suggested increase in numbers by the field commanders will be seen in next 2-3 years. At present, it would be rather premature to comment.

A 'mere increase" in numbers would help the Coalition's combat effectiveness by a large degree. Most of the Marine Recon units are still in Iraq, and they need to be in Afghanistan.

[The_Prince]

keltoi with all the troops you have in Afghanistan, which outnumber the Taliban, plus all your sophisticated technology, and with the ADDITION of Afghani forces helping, you still need more troops to fight a group of men in slippers and worn out shoes with ak's and rpg's? lol now thats funny if you ask me.

[Keltoi]

keltoi with all the troops you have in Afghanistan, which outnumber the Taliban, plus all your sophisticated technology, and with the ADDITION of Afghani forces helping, you still need more troops to fight a group of men in slippers and worn out shoes with ak's and rpg's? lol now thats funny if you ask me.

If you think that's funny then you obviously know very little about war. It is an insurgency. The 15,000 to 20,000 combat troops in Afghanistan have an area the size of Texas to patrol and operate in. The enemy has safe haven across the border, where they equip and recruit. The U.S. can't cross that border as of yet, so it makes it difficult to stomp the Taliban out completely. It doesn't matter whether they have Ak-47's or M-14s. When an insurgency can operate with a safe haven it makes a game of "whack-the-mole", where you have to wait for the Taliban to show themselves before you engage them, at least most of the time.

The issue isn't whether the Taliban can defeat the Coalition militarily, because they can't. The issue is the instability an insurgency like that can create.

[ahsan28]

A 'mere increase" in numbers would help the Coalition's combat effectiveness by a large degree. Most of the Marine Recon units are still in Iraq, and they need to be in Afghanistan.

I read somewhere " Never reinforce failure"

[Keltoi]

I read somewhere " Never reinforce failure"

What failure? Perhaps the Taliban need to heed that advice, not the Coalition.

[islamirama]

What failure? Perhaps the Taliban need to heed that advice, not the Coalition.

Taliban are a legitimate sovereign of that nation. The Coalition are the invaders and occupiers. Where Russians and many others failed, what makes you think these new invaders will succeed? Perhaps the invaders should heed and go back where they came from.

[Keltoi]

Taliban are a legitimate sovereign of that nation. The Coalition are the invaders and occupiers. Where Russians and many others failed, what makes you think these new invaders will succeed? Perhaps the invaders should heed and go back where they came from.

If the Taliban are so "legitimate" why did they have to take control of Afghanistan town by town? Why is the threat coming from the mountains of Pakistan and not from the Afghan people themselves? The U.S. experience in Afghanistan is nothing like the Soviet experience. That is for a variety of reasons, but the primary one is that the Taliban insurgency is not seen as a benefit to the Afghan people. Even the Pashtun, who are the ones who supported the Taliban, haven't joined the insurgency to any large extent.

[Fazl Ahmad]

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu

Most of us Muslims are on the sidelines while a few brave talibans are undertaking the blessed jihad to free their country from foreigners. The biggest contribution we should be making is remembering the mujahideen in our prayers, may Allah grant them ultimate success and victory and restore peace and prosperity to the people of Afghanistan and all suffering Muslims (ameen).

[Trumble]

Most of us Muslims are on the sidelines while a few brave talibans are undertaking the blessed jihad to free their country from foreigners.

Oddly enough a not insignificant number of those muslims are either fighting the Taliban or simply wishing they would just go away and leave them alone. Whatever the merits, or otherwise, of the conflict (and the original topic of this thread is certainly inexcusable - although the Talifans might want to do a little research on just how many innocent muslim civilians their heroes have killed), the Taliban are one faction among many and represent 'Islam' no more than the others - just as they were when they seized power.

[Fazl Ahmad]

Oddly enough a not insignificant number of those muslims are either fighting the Taliban or simply wishing they would just go away and leave them alone. Whatever the merits, or otherwise, of the conflict (and the original topic of this thread is certainly inexcusable - although the Talifans might want to do a little research on just how many innocent muslim civilians their heroes have killed), the Taliban are one faction among many and represent 'Islam' no more than the others - just as they were when they seized power.

I think it will be a little difficult for you to sympathize with the Taliban since you are not a Muslim. This is understandable. But I wish to point out that yes there are some misguided Muslims who have taken direct opposition to the taliban and the jihad movement. I believe these people are collaborators, they sided with the foreign invaders against their own Muslim brothers. I think this is a very sad and bitter fact, because Muslims must be united among themselves and should never fight and kill each other. Allah Holy and Exalted is He says in the sacred Quran: Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. (aali Imran 3:28)

Part of the reason for the downfall of Muslims is that we have at large abandoned the beautiful and wise teachings of our sacred Quran. True, millions of Muslims constantly recite and memorize the Quran, but there is a great lacking in truly understanding its message and implementing its teachings.

[Trumble]

But I wish to point out that yes there are some misguided Muslims who have taken direct opposition to the taliban and the jihad movement. I believe these people are collaborators, they sided with the foreign invaders against their own Muslim brothers. I think this is a very sad and bitter fact, because Muslims must be united among themselves and should never fight and kill each other.

I fully understand that that is your position. I would point out myself, though, that claiming those muslims who oppose the Taliban are 'misguided' can only arise from that point of view; that opinion. To others it is the Taliban who are 'misguided'. Both have used the teachings of the Qur'an to support their position. In my humble opinion that is not even particularly relevant as, however they may choose to portray it, the agenda of the Taliban is primarily political rather than religious. Nothing recruits people to a political cause better than to portray it as religious, as both the Crusades and rather more recnt events in the Middle East have shown.

[ahsan28]

Nothing recruits people to a political cause better than to portray it as religious, as both the Crusades and rather more recnt events in the Middle East have shown.

Nothing wrong, if the ultimate intention is to fight against foreign aggression. Hope you don't mind.

[...]

I think it will be a little difficult for you to sympathize with the Taliban since you are not a Muslim. This is understandable. But I wish to point out that yes there are some misguided Muslims who have taken direct opposition to the taliban and the jihad movement. I believe these people are collaborators, they sided with the foreign invaders against their own Muslim brothers. I think this is a very sad and bitter fact, because Muslims must be united among themselves and should never fight and kill each other. Allah Holy and Exalted is He says in the sacred Quran: Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. (aali Imran 3:28)

Part of the reason for the downfall of Muslims is that we have at large abandoned the beautiful and wise teachings of our sacred Quran. True, millions of Muslims constantly recite and memorize the Quran, but there is a great lacking in truly understanding its message and implementing its teachings.

I agree completely.

I fully understand that that is your position. I would point out myself, though, that claiming those muslims who oppose the Taliban are 'misguided' can only arise from that point of view; that opinion. To others it is the Taliban who are 'misguided'. Both have used the teachings of the Qur'an to support their position. In my humble opinion that is not even particularly relevant as, however they may choose to portray it, the agenda of the Taliban is primarily political rather than religious. Nothing recruits people to a political cause better than to portray it as religious, as both the Crusades and rather more recnt events in the Middle East have shown.

Its strange isn't it. The US is suddenly so willing to storm into other countries to 'help' the Muslims when it is them that have defamed them and denounced so many of them terrorists.

Maybe the other countries don't want the US to interfere... So many innocents are killed and injured as a result and yet they prevent food and aid from reaching! The number of deaths and casualties is much more than the media is going to portray! Why? In the name of 'peace'.

And are you really sure the Muslims of that country want them there? Are you really?? What are your sources? The Media... Quite interesting isn't it.

I wonder where the Muslims are today. Asleep. Why don't they go and help their brothers???? They're SCARED... We're all going to die one day. Maybe we should chose how.

:w:

[Keltoi]

Its strange isn't it. The US is suddenly so willing to storm into other countries to 'help' the Muslims when it is them that have defamed them and denounced so many of them terrorists.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq weren't about helping Muslims. Some hoped that would be the end result, but it wasn't the motivation. Now that the "conventional" wars are over and insurgencies remain, the emphasis is more about helping those countries create stability and order. Stability and order is good for both the Coalition and the people of those nations.

And are you really sure the Muslims of that country want them there? Are you really?? What are your sources? The Media... Quite interesting isn't it.

Of course "the Muslims" don't want the Coalition in Afghanistan or Iraq. The question is do they want the Taliban or Saddam Hussein back? My hunch would be NO.

[islamirama]

Of course "the Muslims" don't want the Coalition in Afghanistan or Iraq. The question is do they want the Taliban or Saddam Hussein back? My hunch would be NO.

Your hunch would be wrong then. I posted a news video few months back about an incident in iraq and the civilians saying Iraq was better under saddam. Where saddam allegedly killed 225,000 in 20 years, bush regimed killed over 1 million in just 5 years. Who is the wrost you tell me?

And for Taliban, they too arose to power because of the people asking them to arise against the warlords and chaos that was there. Except for a few liberal secular lunatics, rest of the afghans want Taliban rather then crusaders in their land. War (more like occupation) in afghan and iraq is a loosing battle. When the public is with the "insurgents" (legitimate resistance fighers against a foriegn occupation) then you can't stand there for long, now matter how many covert distraction bombings and "suicide" market attacks you do.

[ahsan28]

Even the Pashtun, who are the ones who supported the Taliban, haven't joined the insurgency to any large extent.

Your own media doesn't agree with you.

[Keltoi]

Your own media doesn't agree with you.

What media? The Pashtun make up the majority in Afghanistan, and there are more Pashtuns in the Afghan National Army than all the Taliban, at least as active insurgents.

[Keltoi]

Your hunch would be wrong then. I posted a news video few months back about an incident in iraq and the civilians saying Iraq was better under saddam. Where saddam allegedly killed 225,000 in 20 years, bush regimed killed over 1 million in just 5 years. Who is the wrost you tell me?

And for Taliban, they too arose to power because of the people asking them to arise against the warlords and chaos that was there. Except for a few liberal secular lunatics, rest of the afghans want Taliban rather then crusaders in their land. War (more like occupation) in afghan and iraq is a loosing battle. When the public is with the "insurgents" (legitimate resistance fighers against a foriegn occupation) then you can't stand there for long, now matter how many covert distraction bombings and "suicide" market attacks you do.

I find it really difficult to take any of your posts seriously. Let me get this straight...now the Coalition is the one doing the suicide attacks? Sure buddy...keep stirring that Kool-Aid.

[islamirama]

I find it really difficult to take any of your posts seriously. Let me get this straight...now the Coalition is the one doing the suicide attacks? Sure buddy...keep stirring that Kool-Aid.

plenty of pictures have been posted as well as testimonies from these "suicide" drivers and other articles on the forum, but i guess the blinds will see nothing but what their regime spoon feeds them.

[Trumble]

plenty of pictures have been posted as well as testimonies from these "suicide" drivers and other articles on the forum.

Produce some.

[ahsan28]

What media? The Pashtun make up the majority in Afghanistan, and there are more Pashtuns in the Afghan National Army than all the Taliban, at least as active insurgents.

Do you have accurate figures about Talibans from reliable sources?

[Keltoi]

Do you have accurate figures about Talibans from reliable sources?

As of 2007 the Afghan National Army boasted 46,000 active troops. That number has obviously increased and is estimated at 76,000 as of 2008.



Here is the official website of the Afghan National Army http://www.mod.gov.af/

As for the Taliban, the highest estimates are 10,000, but more likely only about 3 to 4,000 active insurgents. These numbers are from the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10551...%2Fafghanistan

[Muezzin]

It would be so nice if people could stay on-topic for longer than approximately four posts.

Translation: This thread is close to lockage. You can save it though! Yes, you, the member reading this! Just make sure what you post comments on the first post and doesn't include irrelevant peripheral information!

[islamirama]

Produce some.

no thanks, i don't like wasting my time on doing repetitive tasks every few weeks for the brain dead in here. Those who want to see can use their brains for once and do a little search on this forum rather then just run their mouths

[Muezzin]

I take it, then, that all discussion of the original news article has ceased?

Thread closed.