|
U-Know! Forum » Civilian victims of United States' aerial bombing of Afghanistan |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
marymarie 10 posts |
Feb 16, 2010, 15:01
|
||
|
NATO missiles kill 12 Afghan civilians in Helmand February 14, 2010 PAN: Despite assurances from NATO and Afghan officials to minimize the collateral damage during an ongoing offensive in southern Helmand province, a dozen civilians were killed on Sunday."Two rockets launched at insurgents firing upon Afghan and ISAF forces impacted approximately 300 meters off their intended target, killing 12 civilians in Nad Ali district," the International Security Assistance Force said. Full news... http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/02/14/nato-missiles-kill-12-afghan-civilians-in-helmand.html Villagers accuse US Special Forces for killing five civilians February 12, 2010 Morning Star: An Afghan provincial official and villagers has accused US special forces on Friday of killing five civilians in a raid on a home near Gardez in Paktia province. Gardez provincial council member Shahyesta Jan Ahadi said: "On Thursday night, the Americans conducted an operation in a house and killed five innocent people, including three women. The people are so angry." Full news... http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2010/02/12/afghanistan-villagers-accuse-us-special-forces-for-killing-five-civilians.html
|
|||
handofdave 3426 posts |
Feb 16, 2010, 17:25
|
||
|
I don't want to detract from the maddening tragedy that is the ongoing loss of innocent life, but I have to point out two things: 1. This was a deadly accident. US troops do not receive orders to fire on civilians, despite the occasional loose trigger. A US soldier not long ago went on a shooting spree right here in the USA and murdered over a dozen people. Those Blackwater guards who went berzerk in Iraq are not representative of the vast majority of the people serving. 2. When the Taliban kill innocent people, they do it on purpose. When Al Quaeda kill innocent people, they do it on purpose, and with gusto, too. You can't talk about errant US missiles without also mentioning suicide bombers blowing up people who are merely shopping for a meal or playing a game of soccer. You could argue that we should just pull out and the violence would stop, but you'd be surrendering the country back to a medieval bunch of woman-hating fascists who kill people publicly for entertainment. Violence and death are always bad, but in a situation like this there's no one clear 'bad guy'.
|
|||
|
marymarie 10 posts |
Edited Feb 19, 2010, 14:31
Feb 16, 2010, 18:58
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I don't want to detract from the maddening tragedy that is the ongoing loss of innocent life, but I have to point out two things: 1. This was a deadly accident. US troops do not receive orders to fire on civilians, despite the occasional loose trigger. A US soldier not long ago went on a shooting spree right here in the USA and murdered over a dozen people. Those Blackwater guards who went berzerk in Iraq are not representative of the vast majority of the people serving. 2. When the Taliban kill innocent people, they do it on purpose. When Al Quaeda kill innocent people, they do it on purpose, and with gusto, too. You can't talk about errant US missiles without also mentioning suicide bombers blowing up people who are merely shopping for a meal or playing a game of soccer. You could argue that we should just pull out and the violence would stop, but you'd be surrendering the country back to a medieval bunch of woman-hating fascists who kill people publicly for entertainment. Violence and death are always bad, but in a situation like this there's no one clear 'bad guy'. Who "created" those "medieval" woman-haters in the first place?... And would you say that the US occupation is supposed to bring freedom to the Afghan women?... If you have a look at older articles on that website which belongs to the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, you'll see that those Afghan women want the invaders to pull out (and have been saying it for over five years). According to them, since the invasion Afghanistan "has sunk into a calamity", it was better off before the invasion, even with all the barbaric Taliban roaming about freely. They also say it is impossible to bring peace, human rights and stability to Afghanistan with the current "gang of criminals in power". Those women know the weaknesses, the irresponsibility and the corruption of the fundamentalist Karzai government intimately, and they speak of both the Taliban regime and Karzai's regime in derogatory terms. And the most lucid and sensitive observers have been striving to understand the reasons why some prefer to kill themselves, sometimes involving in the downfall also those they hold responsible for their desperate gesture (the occupiers)... As for the word "fascist", I myself find it deceitful. These days it is often used to justify illegal aggressions against... "fascist" guys. The spectre of fascism seems to be serving the interests of the Northern Alliance criminals fairly well.
|
|||
sanshee 633 posts |
Feb 16, 2010, 21:52
|
||
|
Look at any country in and around those regions and beyond and you'll find that despite the face of 'legitimate' governance (some of the countries were are 'pals' with), many parts away from the cities are still more or less left to the rule of 'villiage elders', where Taleban-esque law applies. Now, where to next? x
|
|||
CraigR 455 posts |
Feb 16, 2010, 23:29
|
||
|
marymarie wrote: handofdave wrote: I don't want to detract from the maddening tragedy that is the ongoing loss of innocent life, but I have to point out two things: 1. This was a deadly accident. US troops do not receive orders to fire on civilians, despite the occasional loose trigger. A US soldier not long ago went on a shooting spree right here in the USA and murdered over a dozen people. Those Blackwater guards who went berzerk in Iraq are not representative of the vast majority of the people serving. 2. When the Taliban kill innocent people, they do it on purpose. When Al Quaeda kill innocent people, they do it on purpose, and with gusto, too. You can't talk about errant US missiles without also mentioning suicide bombers blowing up people who are merely shopping for a meal or playing a game of soccer. You could argue that we should just pull out and the violence would stop, but you'd be surrendering the country back to a medieval bunch of woman-hating fascists who kill people publicly for entertainment. Violence and death are always bad, but in a situation like this there's no one clear 'bad guy'. Who "created" those "medieval" woman-haters in the first place?... I don't know? The Mongols? And would you say that the US occupation is supposed to bring freedom to the Afghan women?... .........and the USA are the only ones involved? Your first reference refers to a NATO operation. If you have a look at older articles on that website which belongs to the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, you'll see that those Afghan women want the invaders to pull out (and have been saying it for over five years). I'm not sure they speak for the majority. Are you? According to them, since the invasion Afghanistan "has sunk into a calamity", it was better off before the invasion, even with all the barbaric Taliban roaming about freely. I can't find that statement,or sentiment, in context,on RAWA. They also say it is impossible to bring peace, human rights and stability to Afghanistan with the current "gang of criminals in power". Those women know the weaknesses, the irresponsibility and the corruption of the fundamentalist Karzai government intimately, and they speak of both the Taliban regime and Karzai's regime in derogatory terms. I don't deny it. Until an encompassing fair election process can be established it's ropey as you like. As for the word "fascist", I myself find it deceitful. These days it is often used to justify illegal aggressions against... "fascist" guys. The spectre of fascism seems to be serving the interests of the Northern Alliance criminals fairly well. I don't find the term deceitful in this case. The old regime was, in elements fascist. |
|||
|
CraigR 455 posts |
Feb 16, 2010, 23:29
|
||
Canny get the hang of quotes. Apologies for messing that up!!
|
|||
stray 1630 posts |
Edited Feb 17, 2010, 01:04
Feb 17, 2010, 00:44
|
||
|
Irrespective of our own first world perspective on the conflict, and the regime that preceeded it, Marymaries points are more than valid. These women represent a genuine intellectual and political voice within the country which is a damn sight more informed than our own could ever be. You said Craig that you're 'not sure that they speak for the majority' erm.. what is your point there ? What if they do ? What if the current conflict is making a lot of Afghan people irrespective of gender yearn for the old Taliban Regime. A sort of rosy tinted view, of an oppresive time sure, but one which they kind of made sense of (and one with a lot less death tbh, it didn't have much of the 'death from above' style we create with our weaponry). Also under that regime there were quite large areas of the country that the Taliban never managed to bring under their control after all. The Taliban were shit at controlling the nation, a lot of it did what it wanted until a roaming gang turned up. Maybe these revolutionary womens group have a staged approach to revolution and liberation for themselves. Maybe. Their current posture could be an act like a kind of strategic essentialism to win peoples ears, or a radical polemic to kickstart a discussion with their wider agenda. What is definite is it's fucked, and we will not be able to sort it out. You cannot invade and control a country that size or with that geography with the number of troops we have there. Its like invading France with 20,000 people and moving them around from place to place in the hope of taking it over. Its dumb,and it will continue to cost civilian lives. I'm worried we're going to see sort of contemporary Hadrians Walls built and shedloads of watch towers. Bottom line though, if the people would prefer Taliban rule then we have no real right to argue otherwise no matter how repulsive we may find their system. Revolutions, and liberation struggles in general cannot be imposed by external force, that's just laughable (but yeah, you can put the ideas in there, radicalise etc, but you still need mass support). They need majority support or they're just as bad as whatever they are trying to replace. We know that we cannot ever get this country to adopt a model that is pleasing to us, and nor should we, which is why we've started negotiating with the Taliban and basically buying them off. I'd much rather listen to the opinions and ideas of these women than any of our political or military commentators 'Can the subaltern speak ?' etc. Edit:oh and yeah, elections will not really solve anything in Afghanistan. Well not elections that have the slightest whiff of our involvement and they'll have more than just a whiff. Edit2: RAWA and other groups have the ideas, and are building the organisations, to combat the Talibans system. We should really let them I think.
|
|||
|
sanshee 633 posts |
Feb 18, 2010, 14:08
|
||
|
That, and when the new Afghani prez recently decreed rape within marriage was O.K, Bob Ainsworth et al piped up that to contradict things like that would be 'culturally insensitive', coz 'the Afghans were deciding things for themselves'. So one person's 'cultural insensitivity' is another's 'greater good', or something, I take it. :-/ x
|
|||
|
handofdave 3426 posts |
Feb 18, 2010, 19:06
|
||
|
Do the Afghans want the Taliban back, tho, or are they merely terrified to be seen cooperating with NATO forces lest they end up executed in some grisly fashion? I admit that there's many times I've thought, fuck it, let the Taliban have Afghanistan. In some ways they even did things better... they took poppy production to a standstill while in power. But they did allow Al Quaeda to operate there, and they are without question hostile to the west and a threat to Pakistan (and it's nukes). They enforce very strict control over all facets of life, often by the blade of a knife for the most minor infractions. Their utter dominance over women is well known. They keep their own people down. They execute you if you express a wish to convert away from Islam. They publicly cut off people's heads to inspire terror. They are ultimately only good for Afghanistan insofar as much as they'd be a relatively ready power that would restore itself if NATO were to withdraw. But it'd be surrendering to a religiously intolerant, culturally medieval bunch of bastards who'd go on a revenge spree the minute we left and come down harder than ever on the populace. I'm not happy that the west is mucking around in Afghanistan, but that doesn't translate into any love for the Taliban. I think it's dangerous to start reassessing them favorably as a way out. What if we'd invaded Germany as they were railroading people into death camps, and then decided to leave and let the Nazis resume their agenda? I realize that's a bit hyperbolic, but not by very much.
|
|||
|
stray 1630 posts |
Edited Feb 18, 2010, 21:54
Feb 18, 2010, 21:52
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I realize that's a bit hyperbolic, but not by very much. Oh I dunno I think it's extreme hyperbole tbh. I think there is a large disconnect, and a serious lack of knowledge of Afghanistans history. Being hostile to the west is not a crime, plus the Taliban and Al Qaeda really didn't/don't get on that much with each other. They were tolerant of each other though sure, and still are, but it won't last when we leave. The Taliban itself isn't that organised and is extremely factional. Once their common enemy leaves (namely us) there is a bloody good chance they will be very busy ripping each other apart. These and many more reasons are what make your Nazi Germany comparison very silly really.
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
- ©2012ce Head Heritage Ltd. Contact us Top of page