NATO airstrike kills at least 27 **MORE** civilians in Afghanistan - Goddamn it.

[bigtree]

1 hr 59 mins ago


MARJAH, Afghanistan (Reuters) – A NATO airstrike in Afghanistan mistakenly killed 27 civilians, the government said on Monday, hurting a campaign to win over the local population and defeat Taliban insurgents.

The Afghan cabinet condemned the killings as "unjustifiable" after an aircraft fired on civilians, mistaking them for insurgents, in the south near the border of Uruzgan and Dai Kondi provinces.

Initially the Afghan cabinet reported 33 deaths, but later clarified that 27 had died. Sunday's toll was still the highest number of civilian deaths in months.

"Initial reports indicate that NATO fired Sunday on a convoy of three vehicles ... killing at least 27 civilians, including four women and one child, and injuring 12 others," the Afghan cabinet said in a statement.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said in a statement civilians had been killed as they approached a joint NATO-Afghan unit, but did not say how many.

read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100222/wl_nm/us_afghanistan

[Echo In Light]

1. Travesty as usual

[bigtree]

2. unfuckingbelievable

. . . who didn't think this was going to happen? Fallujah, anyone?

[panader0]

3. Winning the hearts and minds of the people again eh?

Get out of Afghanistan NOW! There will be no "victory", only more tragedies like this one.

[bigtree]

4. Petraeus said yesterday

. . . that Marjah is just the 'beginning'.

[msongs]

5. more change we can believe in nt nt

[bigtree]

7. change is arguable

. . . it's when they call this 'progress' and 'success' that I get burned.

[BeGoodDoGood]

6. 10,000 Frenchmen

Ten Thousand French were killed by Allied bombing between 4/1/44 and 6/6/44. The total from 1940-45 was 60,000.

It now appears that the Obama Administration policy in Afghanistan might actually bear fruit. Incidents like this are very bad, but we know the Afghans want the Taliban gone too so this might not be as bad it appears.

A lot on people on DU want to condemn our military at every chance they get. People need to be more tribal and worry about our guys first.

Walt

[hayu_lol]

8. Perhaps we should furnish the 'insurgents'...

distinctive orange colored uniforms so that we could tell the difference between them and just masses of people all dressed the same on the ground.

Some of the posters who continually knock our troops should perhaps go over and model said orange uniforms for the bad guys...show them how to wear them etc.

Who sent the plane? Any of you troop knockers know? Hmmm...didn't think so.

[bigtree]

11. the MISSION is wrongheaded and immoral

You can't get out from under that by posturing as if only supporters of this travesty have regard for the troops ordered to carry out the president and the Pentagon leadership's deadly folly. This needs to end. It's a strategy destined to fail on the president's own justifications. That alone makes this more than just a tragedy. It's a travesty and a damn shame.

[BeGoodDoGood]

14. The Mission was embarked on by Bush.

President Obama seems to be doing the best he can to disenage under some difficult circumstances.

What I am saying is that a lot of people on DU love to bash our guys at every opportunity.

If our Air can interdict Taliban movement, that helps our guys. If they did kill 27 civilians (it is hard to tell who is who in case you missed it), then some might want to consider that as part of the price to get our guys home safe.

Walt

[bigtree]

19. the mission has been escalated by President Obama

. . . 'best he can' assumes that he's made the correct decision to escalate the 'mission' in the manner that we're witnessing surrounding the assault on Marjah. He may well be doing the 'best he can', but he's going in the wrong direction, I believe, putting our troops at unnecessary risk for dubious (and I think counterproductive) goals.

[bridgit]

47. That can be seen like Obama repairing a concrete stoop 8 years after it needed repair...

The concrete is more expensive, the re-bar is more expensive, the forms for the concrete are more expensive and the concrete guys are more expensive - the "escalated" nature of the repair is most important now; in that the last guy has allowed the stoop to become degraded and unsafe for anyone coming or going

"'best he can' assumes that he's made the correct decision to escalate the 'mission' in the manner that we're witnessing surrounding the assault on Marjah"

Maybe is the happiest face that can be put on it, but even that wheel is still in spin

[bigtree]

64. so, we use a sledgehammer

. . . and scramble to gather all the scattered pieces of humanity and mold them into a U.S. stoop. Brilliant.

[bridgit]

65. I can see you've little dealt with degraded concrete...

Better to leave all stoops in the dangerous, unsafe conditions they are already in - brilliant

[bigtree]

66. I tend to my own stoop

I know the steps. They are my own.

Afghanistan's broken steps don't threaten me unless I choose to alight upon them. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell Afghans how to repair their home. Upon inspection of the American 'contractors'' work in Afghanistan and elsewhere, I would not recommend us to the task, anyway. Afghanistan needs craftsmen, tools, food - not a demolition crew.

[bridgit]

68. Sadly, the tending of *our* own stoop was & remains part & parcel...

of providing energy resources able to contribute to the lighting of your puter screen. And the US isn't the only concern out there playing that game: China, Russia, Europe, etc, and if you think playing with China & Russia are like tousling with Panda & Siberian bear cubs well - there's one for the books

So people can think they are less connected that's fine but connected they are. That being said, I know there's a better way but do people listen to me? No, they do not. Maybe they should who knows. Either way, even though there's no point in de-engineering the specifics here - the reasons - and with respect to your OP in particular: there are Taliban pols in close/whispering proximity to the Afghan Govt and Admin - perhaps we should ask them why so many civilians are observed so near battlefields bristling with laser targeting devices

Short of the grandest solution of them all: just flipping a switch and ending it with a snap of ozone, pack the gear and split back home so we can maybe sweep our own stoops in peace - ask the Taliban pols in Kabul why the Taliban fighters in the outlying regions of Afghanistan are so prone to sending their people through cross-hairs

Cause this is where its all heading: no one here wants to do anything, pay for anything, explain anything, or see themselves in any ill-suited mix anywhere; least of all actually go to war (I mean who does) therefore

http://volokh.com/2009/12/13/guilty-battlefield-robots

People are being taken out of the mix, that ought to make your concern take off like a bottle rocket. But it is being fielded as a response to your feelings regarding collateral damage. You can't stop it, and I can't stop it. Not by ourselves

If I were getting the shit kicked out of me across from your own stoop, on the other side of the street, I'd like to think that you'd maybe consider coming on over and asking if there was anything you could do to assist, and without any pre-conditions that you were there to assist me - if in the event you decide to come on over, just be yourself that is good enough for me either way that...

This escalation is not Obama's per se, not in the way you've framed it. Obama is responding to For The Eyes of The POTUS Only papers that may well have shocked him into action, but my sense is that he likely knows a good deal more about the dangers in Afghanistan than you & I combined

[bigtree]

70. so, the afghanistan occupation is about powering my computer?

I always suspected . . . and civilians are trapped between battling forces and resisting locals. It's their land, so I'd expect them to defend it against assault. Not only are their lives and homes being disrupted and, in many cases, completely run over by the advancing forces, their safety is apparently not enough of a consideration to the U.S. led military for them to provide a place where they can flee and settle until the combatants are done with their war games. Instead, as these vehicles were fleeing the violence to safety(reportedly to a NATO base), they were gunned down. This is either incompetence, indifference, or just plain criminality.

http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/nato-strike-kills-more-25-afghan-civilians

[bridgit]

71. Yeah, that's pretty much it in a nutshell, but you'll need to GoogleMap the area then pull back...

all the way to Malta to get a better, more complete picture of the web that has already been spun for decades now

http://maps.google.com/maps?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=kabul+afghanistan&oq=kabul&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Kabul,+Afghanistan&gl=us&ei=Ki-DS5DAC4b-tAPJhMGqDw&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ8gEwAA

[BeGoodDoGood]

59. Obama Escalated the Mission, Yes

And it does seem to be pressuring the Taliban to realize that they really have no reason to fight us.

[bigtree]

10. we had a defensible goal in that offensive

The justification that our own government uses as their hook to remain militarily engaged in Afghanistan is the president's stated 'goal' to 'dismantle' and 'defeat' al-Qaeda in the country and the region. That's awfully close to the ideological war that Bush and even Nixon used to justify continuing their ambitious military deployments and aggression.

The national security 'goals' in Afghanistan that the president outlined as essential to our future involvement ('defeating al-Qaeda' and 'denying a safe-haven') can be taken to mean anything from a hard and long stand, to a re-focus away from defending Kabul and a dicey focus on Pakistan with the prospect of increased use of 'drone' attacks and covert raids on 'enemy' positions across the sovereign borders.

The limited, tentative NATO forces -despite their escalation- cannot expect to hold any territory they clear of resistant Afghans indefinitely. The plan is to clear and hold land and encourage whoever still dares to live there to line up behind our contrived, ephemeral line of defense and convince them to finish the fight we sparked on their own.

The obvious, predictable result in the assault on Marjah was a temporary lull in the resistance there (after bloody skirmishes and bombings) as the resistance fighters recede into the shadows and wait out our occupying forces - then a stepped-up campaign by the local resistance with opportunistic attacks on our troops and deadly ieds and mines. Nothing really changes for the better on the ground except for a headline or two pointing to 'progress' in occupied territory.

Yet, this mission is actually designed more to influence the favor and confidence of Afghans for their NATO occupiers, than it is a primarily offensive one against the Taliban resistance; hence the advance warnings.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, senior commander of American and allied forces in Afghanistan, and defense secretary Gates, spoke to NATO officials at a meeting a few weeks ago:

“If they (Taliban) want to fight, then obviously that will have to be an outcome,” General McChrystal said. “But if they don’t want to fight, that’s fine, too, if they want to integrate into the government.” Even so, the decision could give insurgents time to flee — and to set booby traps in advance of their departure.

“The biggest thing is in convincing the Afghan people,” General McChrystal said during a briefing for correspondents traveling with Mr. Gates. “This is all a war of perceptions. This is not a physical war in terms of how many people you kill or how much ground you capture, how many bridges you blow up. This is all in the minds of the participants,” he says.

The most certain result of the promised raid on Marjah will be an increase of casualties on all sides, with an almost certain rise in animosity toward the advancing NATO invaders. We'll take yet another town with specters of our al-Qaeda nemesis in our military's eyes - put down anything that moves against us - and call ourselves liberators. That's a far stretch from the American forces liberation of France in the 1940's.

The occupation of Afghanistan is nothing but another American protection racket where our forces stir up trouble and promise to protect the hapless folks in the way from the effects and consequences of our own blundering militarism - and we can't even get that right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Those ingrates don't understand that were killing them for their own good. K&R

Another glorious victory for "democracy".

[Don Caballero]

12. Mistakes and missteps will be made

We all voted for the President knowing he was expanding the war in Af/Pak.

[bigtree]

15. Ignorance is bliss

. . . some of us voted for this president as the best choice between candidates and parties; knowing full well that we would actively and aggressively oppose his intentions in Afghanistan. Don't tell me or anyone else that our participation in our nation's affairs ended at the ballot box on election day.

[Echo In Light]

16. And then again, some of us didn't vote for him, period.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Which is exactly why I didn't vote for him.

[Don Caballero]

18. Who did you vote for then?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. The most progressive anti-war candidate on the ballot.

Which wasn't Obama.

[Don Caballero]

22. McKinney?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Why do you want to know?

[Don Caballero]

25. I want to know who you threw your vote away on

McKinney is a virulent anti-Semite who was thrown out of Congress for physically assaulting a DC police officer. She also is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I didn't "throw my vote away".

I voted for Nader. I refused to "throw it away" on another centrist Democrat that promised to expand another lost war. Many here, and in the country, have come to realize that they "threw their votes away" by voting for a guy who promised "change" and delivered the status quo and politics-as-usual, including a war conducted for PR.

[Don Caballero]

27. Nader is the reason we had to endure eight years of the Bush regime

I would not brag about voting for him. He is a renowned "wrecker" clearly on GOP payroll.

[bigtree]

28. oh, the shame!

give it a rest or go start your own thread on the election.

[Echo In Light]

30. Nevermind that Gore himself, based on the data, denies that strategic meme

:thumbsup:

[Bluebear]

38. I don't know how long DU is going to let him play with us like his own toy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Gosh, I thought Bush was elected by the people who voted for him...including Democrats.

Want to show me where Nader is "clearly on GOP payroll"?

If the Democratic candidates want the votes of the left they'll have to earn them. And, they sure as hell won't if they continue lost wars and kow-tow to the right.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frylock]

44. did i strike a nerve there, cowboy?

the truth sucks, don't it?

[ShortnFiery]

56. Oh stop blaming Nader because Gore ran a shitty campaign.

It never should have been THAT close and you know it.

[Fumesucker]

21. And we voted for him knowing he was going to oppose a private insurance mandate..

So, how is that working out?

[theHandpuppet]

13. NATO airstrike?

Why is is when there is some "successful" operation in Afghanistan the credit is given to American or British or some other country-specific forces, but when there's a massive fuck-up it's always attributed to the more ambiguous, "NATO forces"? (Who just happen to be led by American General McChrystal.) Am I reading too much into this?

[Fumesucker]

23. Success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan..

-John F Kennedy

[sallysense]

31. supporting iraq veterans against war idea at change.org...

hiya folks!... am passing along this link in support of iraq veterans against war idea at change.org...

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/gi_and_veteran_bill_of_rights

a heartfelt wishingwell to all!... :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. Thanks.

[bigtree]

33. did the IVAW initiative win the 'Idea's for Change in America' competition?

(thanks for the link)

Okay, I see now where it needs more votes . . . total climbing - good job!

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=TxuUcZkVtX1rXBAJVzqVldVQCa6Tc7HK

[sallysense]

34. only 3 days left to vote on it at change.org...

hiya bigtree'n'all!... only 3 days left to vote on it at change.org... the best of wishes'n'ways'n'todays to ya'n'all!... :)

[bigtree]

35. got some votes

good work, sally!

[sallysense]

39. thanks!... the well-being of our soldiers deserves our full support!...

thanks bigtree!... the well-being of our soldiers deserves our full support!... :)

[slipslidingaway]

37. :( n/t

[pleah]

40. Very sad news. n/t

[bvar22]

41. Is that a light at the end of the tunnel?

No, its just more burning and dieing innocent civilians who didn't and couldn't attack the USA.
How many innocent Afghani civilians must we kill before Afghanistan is successfully "pacified"?

Meet Hamid Karzai
or as Obama calls him, "The Government of Afghanistan".

He was appointed by Bush the Lesser to run Afghanistan.
He is one of the most despicable criminals in The World,
But NOW we like him so much
that our children fighting and dieing in the deserts of Afghanistan to keep him in power.

[Mari333]

42. WE ARE THE BAD GUYS GOD FORGIVE US

[Robb]

48. No, the bad guys behead innocent people on purpose.

Plenty of that in the news today, if you look.

Why do you not care about their intent to do wrong as much as this event, which no sane person would claim was intentional?

Honest question.

[Mari333]

49. they behead people in saudi arabia too and we kiss their asses

they behead people all over the world in other cultures and we dont stick our noses in..why?

BECAUSE THIS IS A CORPORATE WAR TO SECURE TERRITORY FOR OIL


WE ARE STILL TORTURING
WE HAVE BEEN TORTURING FOR 9 YEARS
WE ARE KILLING CIVILIANS AND SOLDIERS FOR PROFIT


YOU CANNOT JUSTIFY THIS NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO SPIN IT

WE ARE THE BAD GUYS WHEN WE OCCUPY ANOTHER COUNTRY FOR CORPORATE PROFIT...PERIOD.

[Robb]

50. Not trying to justify anything, O all caps person.

Just curious where your outrage was on the week's Taliban beheadings. Nowhere, I see.

So it's an isolationist stand, then, eh? Well, OK. I got an answer.

[Mari333]

51. I suggest you sign up or shut up

if you are so gung ho. put down that bag of cheetos and get on over there.

unless you have a horse in this race your opinion doesnt mean shit to me.


IGNORE CHICKENHAWK

[ShortnFiery]

55. Good point. And for those who are not in the greatest of physical condition, there are many ...

Contracting Organizations that are more than willing to take you. Go kill and die in place of our sons and daughters. :thumbsup:

[Robb]

58. That's too bad.

That I do happen to have "skin in the game" shouldn't mean anything. That I know a lot about Afghanistan should.

On the fundamentals here I doubt we have few disagreements. Those we do have I attribute simply to a lack of information on your part.

[bridgit]

61. Is your son still in the military, Mari, or has he been discharged...

We all have a horse in this race, a dog in the fight and so skin in the game in one form or another. And its been some years back now, but there was a DU Army Mom, maybe not you that's fine there are others; that have received great support, solace and wishes for speedy returns from DU after expressing great trepidations about the future of their loved ones - and you know how DU feels about war and people electing to go off to war in an all volunteer army

If it was your son, then I hope he's been able to rotate back in with as little discomfort as possible. The several I know are broken and disrupted inside. One guy did come back chipper as a Blue Jay, but he worked in a cent com typing pool. So there's plenty of ways to contribute to the fog of war

[ShortnFiery]

54. Yes, when we cut the INNOCENTS in half with 50 cal rounds or our smart bombs ...

they are much LESS DEAD because we didn't MEAN to kill them? :crazy:

[Robb]

60. They are equally dead. You do not, however, clamor for justice for them equally.

[bigtree]

72. this is a phony argument

. . . we protest the actions of our own government and military because we have responsibility for them and presume to have influence over them. The foreign policy that we advocate and effect with our activism and advocacy is our message to whoever is determined to threaten us, our allies, or our interests. Certainly you don't believe we can effectively influence the Taliban by posting here.

[ShortnFiery]

74. We don't - but you can bet the farm, their friends and loved ones BURN for justice. eom

[upi402]

43. Shit, I just recycled my old copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People"

I should have sent it to our "Democrats". This crap won't help, it cements hate for generations.

[timeforpeace]

45. Are these NATO airstrikes or US airstrikes?

[bigtree]

46. dunno

but McChrystal apologized

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/02/22/afghanistan.civilian.strike/?hpt=T1

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Individualist]

62. I wish I could rec your post!

:thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

53. What? Their targeting system must be the following selections:

A) Wedding Party;
B) Baby's Room;
C) Al Jazzeera Headquarters
D) Red Cross Warehouses
E) Relatives of SUSPECTED Taliban;

:(

[victoryparty]

57. Jefferson said...

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. kick

[heli]

67. Waste of money and blood

[Mari333]

69. ....

[bigtree]

73. and so it fades into the background

. . . and surge supporters can get back to talking liberation and success:

Afghan surge report reassuring: Sen. Levin
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/8443/20100223/afghan-surge-report-reassuring-sen-levin.htm