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.
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.
This is extremely sad news. May Allah grant the dead paradise.
format_quote Originally Posted by The_Prince
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.
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.
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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
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
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.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
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.
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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
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.
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by ahsan28
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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
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 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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
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.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks