Afghan death toll from U.S. bombings rises
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
59 Comments
Login to comment
0
SushiSake3
The U.S. military - fighin' to save 'Merica, when 'Merica needs to be saved from itself. :-)
0
teleprompter
Well said. Obama is a disaster.
0
SushiSake3
teleprompter/lunchmeat - I didn't say Obama was a disaster. I noticed you couldn't help say words that were never written in a desperate attempt to prop up an argument you don't have.
Nice try all the same. :-)
0
SuperLib
I think what Sushi is saying is that he's unable to express an opinion about Obama unless it's positive.
0
TokyoHustla
The Red Cross has just lost all credibility. Instead of telling the truth - US bombs save Europe from itself, or US bombs save Asia - they go and make up this rubbish.
It's time to pull the plug on the Red Cross.
0
LostinNagoya
Another bloody, useless, sad war. Was it worth? I don´t think so. So many innocent lives lost and no good, positive results.
0
saruzenki
"The international Red Cross said Wednesday that its officials saw women and children among dozens of dead bodies in two villages in western Afghanistan targeted in U.S. bombing runs."
Hmmm, killed in US air strikes or by taliban asassins looking to gain sympathy and support from unsuspecting media outlets like Japantoday ? Hmm, food for thought... the general lesson being "Stop jumping to conclusions" !
"Karzai called civilian casualties “unacceptable.”
He should have thought about that when Taliban training camps were flourishing in his country. If he were smart he'd hand over complete control of the country to the US forces for a month... "yer either with us or against us" !
0
SezWho2
Taliban assassins?
I think the Taliban are mainly looking to gain sympathy and support from the population of Afghanistan. Assassinating people and burying them in the rubble would hardly be a winning strategy for that. The rubble-burials, however, would demonstrate a certain engineering excellence.
0
skipthesong
Another bloody, useless, sad war."
you're right. We should have left the Taliban in power and made some deal with them, to get OBL.
0
Sarge
"The Afghan president said he would raise the issue with President Barack Obama"
How about raising the issue with the extremists who would torture and kill Karzai without hesitation or remorse?
Nah...
0
JoeBigs
Darn weddings keep firing weapons into the air!
0
likeitis
If America is unwilling to fight man to man in order to avoid civilian casualities, then America needs to get the heck of Afghanistan right now.
Dropping bombs on villages accomplishes four things: 1) it kills militants 2) it kills civilians, who are survived by angry people who become militants 3) it makes money for bomb makers 4) it prolongs the war, making money for other war profiteers.
Afghanistan is hopeless, unless you are a war profiteer. But even if Afghanistan were not hopeless, dropping bombs from the air like freaking cowards would not win Afghanistan. It will only turn the people against us. America needs to either grow the balls to do the job properly, and that includes telling bomb makers we don't want to use their product, or America needs to go home.
0
nandakandamanda
The people in the 'safe' houses probably gave off an infrared heat image.
0
adaydream
We have the best intellegence agencies in the world. We have missiles that we can send through the eye of a needle 100 miles away and we still kill many many civilians.
Obama is positive about taking out the militants, but he didn't pull the trigger or push the button to send the bombs that killed these civilians.
Somebody screwed up. < :-)
0
SushiSake3
"Somebody screwed up."
Republicans are too weak and too proud to admit they started the wrong war.
0
jeancolmar
America has a nice guy president and a war that is getting worse by the day. This unfortunately is blood on America's hands and, unfortunately, Obama's hands. It is past time for the US to get out of Afghanistan. It was a mistake to start the war there in the first place.
Anyone remember why the US is in Afghanistan? Originally it was to get Bin Landen. That's one mission that wasn't accomplished and won't be. Before the war we at least knew where he was. Now we don't know. Before the war the Taliban were an Afghanistan problem. Now they are a regional problem and, therefore, an international problem.
Bush is gone but Bush's evil is still with us. What a bloody mess Obama has inherited.
0
Den Den
He hasn't only inherited it, he is making it worse. Wait and see what happens when Israel bombs Iran...with his blessing. Bin Larden was tiny before Bush, Taliban was tiny before Obama...
I think the only redeeming factor in this sad story is the wonderful job the Red Cross/Cresent do. Thank you guys.
0
SushiSake3
jeancolmar - "What a bloody mess Obama has inherited."
To the Republicans, every problem caused by Bush is now - magically - all President Obama's fault.
Even the current US-sparked global recession that started way back in December 2007.
To the Republicans, even the recession is Obama's fault.
The Republicans don't need an opposition - they are their own worst enemy. :-)
America needs toget out of Afghanistan and Americans need to quit thinking like Sarge ("How about raising the issue with the extremists who would torture and kill Karzai without hesitation or remorse?") and start putting some real world solutions on the negotiating table.
0
SushiSake3
Thank God the Republicans aren't in power any more - they would be absolutely petrified to sit down at the same table as 'terrorists.'
Sit there and talk........now, now, what's so difficult about that. :-)
0
likeitis
I hear ya Sushi, and for the overwhelming majority of it, that statement and its sentiments are correct.
However, it is Obama's baby now, and it was him who decided to make Afghanistan the focus, and its him that could put an end to aerial bombardment that amounts to one step forward and two steps backward.
But pointing a finger at Obama while not even one of nine other fingers point at Bush is just stupid in the extreme.
0
adaydream
I've been hearing this for several years now. It started sometime after george bush pre-emptively and illegally attacked a country that made no offensive actions against the US.
I was glad to see where the US did finally come to an agreement with the Pakistan to do cross border raids and kill militants. These people weren't militants.
Our intellegence failed us and many many people have suffered for that. < :-)
0
WilliB
Obamas war is going splendidly!
(Of course, the only difference is that now the media are firmly only on the side of their beloved Potus... but what a difference it makes.)
0
Schtiel
War is war. Soldiers and civilians die. Fact of life. No such thing as a "legal" or "illegal" war. Did we any more "legally" blow the hell out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than Hitler "legally" invaded Poland? It's simply war; the bureaucracy can rot. Never in history has there been a war without spilling innocent blood, so why expect one from Bush or Obama? Is it terrible civilians die? Yes, but don't act so shocked. The western world has yet to experience the horrors of communism, fascism and oppression the peoples of eastern Europe and parts of Asia have experienced.
0
smithinjapan
Sushi: "To the Republicans, every problem caused by Bush is now - magically - all President Obama's fault."
No kidding! Do you remember when VOR, bushlover, and WilliB were coming on here and saying this was "Obama's war"? Hell, VOR even came on and declared that bush did not start the war in Iraq! The delusion is absolutely beyond belief! Oh! Didn't notice that Willi had commented above when I started this.... hahahaha! My my my.
Anyway, I agree with those above that it's high time the US got out. They failed way back when they decided to go on a jaunt in Iraq to cover up the fact that they couldn't find OBL, and as a result didn't finish off the job they started in Afghanistan. It's too late now and it's time to get out.
0
SuperLib
Really? I thought they operated without any real concern for sympathy or support. They don't want people to want them....just just want them to obey.
0
SuperLib
I thought it had more to do with removing the safe haven the country gave to international terrorists to set up camp and plan attacks against the West. Bin Laden was always the top prize, but terrorists used to operate there openly.
0
SuperLib
Can you give us some specific examples of what the US should do with Afghanistan after the pullout?
0
SuperLib
I could actually see myself agreeing with that in the future. Since the invasion, Al Queda has killed mostly Europeans, Muslims, Southeast Asians, and Africans. Not Americans. If this continues, then maybe the US should pull out and let those countries handle it themselves.
And no, I'm not joking.
0
ca1ic0cat
Obama was the one saying he was going to get the US out of the middle east. Now that he's actually president reality has set in and, yes, reality sucks.
If the taliban cowards are going to use human shields so that they can cry crocodile tears when the bombs fall then what can you do? They have no moral or ethical credibility.
0
zurcronium
calicocat,
the question is does the USA have any morality and ethical credibility. Probably not after 8 years of bush.
Why is Obama continuing the bush policies in Afganistan? Anything bush did was doomed to failure. And the oil boy Karzai, hand picked by Exxon to run that county, is a total loser as well.
0
NeilWarnock
More deaths caused by the US death machine. Hey, Americans, wonder why you are disliked worldwide? BTW it is not beacuse of envy as your ex President liked to say.
This is another outrage showing the callous brutal behaviour the American war machine. More recruits for the Taliban. God are Americans daft or what!
0
Sarge
"are Americans daft or what!"
Yeah, well, we "daft" Americans will keep on fighting the scumbags who would torture and kill you without hesitation or remorse.
0
SezWho2
Then you thought wrong.
0
bushlover
[No kidding! Do you remember when VOR, bushlover, and WilliB were coming on here and saying this was "Obama's war"?] There goes Smith again fudgepacking words in peoples mouths. Yes mate you win. You are always right.... in your own mind.
What kind of condition are bodies in after an air strike? Is there much of a body left?
0
OnTheRecord
Sarge; Great post buddy. Putting the liberals in their place. Tee Hee!
0
SuperLib
Wow. So when the radical left hear about the civilian deaths and cry that the US should get out of Afghanistan, it's almost like they're doing their part for the Taliban.
0
SuperLib
How's that? The Taliban isn't big on sympathy. They don't provide humanitarian services to support their terrorist activities against the West like Hamas or Hezbollah. They only provide death for those who do not obey. Incidents like the air strike show how they try to create anger at the US, but that's different than creating sympathy for themselves. My guess is that there aren't too many people outside of the Taliban that have sympathy for the Taliban.
0
SezWho2
...if you can believe US officials. Of course, despite Rumsfeld's complaint that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are outspending the impoverished US in terms of press coverage, the US has absolutely no interest in achieving propaganda victories of its own?
The radical left? America is so far to the right that the American left is more centrist than leftist. And the center still wants to know what lasting victory we can hope to achieve in Afghanistan.
I think it is possible for the US to achieve some kind of reordering of that part of the world. But hundreds of thousands of people will have to die in order for us to do so. Even then, the results will not be certain.
0
SuperLib
Right, because Islamic terrorists using civilian casualties as a weapon of war is just a big smokescreen created by the US and the West...
But to respond to your point, no. I don't think the US is always 100% honest about civilian casualties. But I do think the tactic of creating civilian casualties as a propaganda tool against the US is a very real. And I think if some weren't so eager to believe anyone who claims the US killed civilians, then that practice would be less effective and fewer civilians would be killed overall. And the US has to do our part in minimizing the civilian casualties that we do cause.
But let's be real. The Taliban could kill 100 civilians tomorrow and blame the US for it and there will always be a certain percentage of the population who are more than happy to take them at their word because they are against the war and the US and they don't care who is providing their means to attack.
0
OnTheRecord
Americans do not target or kill innocents. The Taliban evil doers are solely to blame.
0
SezWho2
SuperLib,
No. Islamic terrorists using civilian casualties as a weapon of war is not a smokescreen. But that's not the point.
Of course they will use civilian casualties as a propaganda tool. But there is a difference between using civilian casualties as a tool and creating civilian casualties to use as a tool. Of course the Taliban could kill 100 civilians tomorrow and blame the US, but the point is whether they did this here. Simply resorting to the US propaganda position that this is what they must have done is no substitute for finding the truth of the matter--which is what both Karzai and the US say they want.
Yes, by all means, the US has to do its part in minimizing civilian casualties. But I think it would be dangerous to assume that it can do so by somehow perfecting the requirements for air strikes or the use of drones. At some point, an honest assessment must be made as to whether the asymmetric killing of civilians is worth getting a however many Taliban leaders and fighters we have managed to get. At this point, it doesn't really seem to have deterred the Taliban. They seem to have instead strengthened.
Doing more of what hasn't worked so far may produce a good result. But I think it is more often the case that it does not.
0
SezWho2
OnTheRecord,
It doesn't matter whether Americans target innocents or not. (History suggests, however, that they do so when convenient.) Americans certainly kill them--unless, of course, you subscribe to the philosophical position that there are no innocents.
We started the war against the Taliban. We are responsible for all subsequent events. That we do not intend for civilians to die is not an excuse.
0
nandakandamanda
While all you Lefties and Righties continue to wring your hands and sling schizo accusations at each other, the Taliban are laughing at you. It doesn't matter to them whether the US killed all these people, or whether they did it themselves. They are manipulating American public sentiment as sure as day follows night. If they can increase pressure to pull out, and leave a vacuum for them to step in and rule, they will use every means. Read your history of war.
Hillary Clinton's 'deeply, deeply' regrets are about the best decent thing in this sorry mess.
0
SezWho2
nandakandamanda,
Everyone is manipulating American public sentiment, even Americans--Presidents even.
0
SuperLib
And just who is "simply resorting to the US propaganda position" here? I haven't excused the US. The US and Afghanistan say they're currently investigating. The only people who have come to a conclusion are the ones who have decided that the US is guilty. But you don't seem to be interested in talking to them....
0
SuperLib
Correlation is not causation. I think you're smart enough to know that. The strongest evidence actually goes against your theory, especially in Pakistan, where the Taliban have threatened to carry out suicide attacks in Pakistan if the US doesn't stop air strikes against their positions. Needless to say they aren't particularly happy with them.
0
teleprompter
The Taliban are militants, a transnational and Islamofascist organization. "Talibanistan" is not a sovereign nation. The Taliban take over failing nations, like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Along with the poster likeitis you absolve these monsters of any responsibility in their affairs; you deny them even their own individuality and any capacity for self initiative.
In your own oddly America-centric worldview groups like the Taliban and Al Qaida can only react to the Big Bad Yankee, and from the Left you cravenly grant them the widest latitude possible in their actions, if the result appears to harm the cause of the US or its allies.
Whatever depredations the Taliban get up to you simply adopt a foreshortened linear perspective: though their organizational rise in modern times more or less began with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, ideologically the Taliban ("Seekers", "students") have been around for centuries.
But you simply start the chain of events and the blame game with the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
0
SezWho2
Hmmm.... I don't think you get to poison the arguments of others by taking swipes at some fictitious "radical left" and then demand an accounting for who is buying into US propaganda. However, you might look at saruzenki's post for one. And if you are honest you will admit that a several others (if not here then elsewhere) take the immediate position that civilian deaths are a Taliban put-up job.
As far as me being not interested in talking to those who take the immediate position that the US must be guilty of some nefarious and criminal act, I must say that you don't seem to be interested in talking to them either. Being sarcastic, yes. Being a partner in real conversation, no.
I think you'll find that I have often made the point that correlation is not causation. So when you speculate upon the degree of my intelligence you are being condescending. Condescension is not an argument.
Of course the Taliban in Pakistan are not happy about the air strikes. But that is not evidence that their position is being eroded. It is every bit as much evidence of desperation to contain a growing Taliban strength. Furthermore, I believe the issue here is Afghanistan and not Pakistan.
0
SezWho2
Nonsense. My point is that the US has greater responsibility.
I suppose that we could go back to the unfair treaty after WW1 and argue that England, France and the US were really responsible for WW2 on account of the unfair treaty. Perhaps we could go even further back. However, the people who initiate hostilities are basically the people who start the wars.
The US started this war as a solution to the bin Laden/al Qaeda problem. It did not solve that problem. But it managed to destroy the defacto government which, although brutal, actually kept fairly good control of the country. We replaced it with a nominally democratic government which does not.
The lack of central government control, the deaths, the renewed opium production, the continued occupation of a sovereign country were all undertaken on US initiative. The US is responsible. The Powell Doctrine says we have to fix what we broke. That's all very well and good unless we cannot.
0
teleprompter
OBL was a Saudi national. Al Qaeda is not native to Afghanistan. The six-man Taliban council that ruled from Kabul did not include a single member who had ever lived in the city before.
Actually! Yes, yes, that explains why so many refugees returned:
"The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has helped3.69 million Afghan refugees return to Afghanistan since March 2002, marking thelargest assisted return operation in its history. In addition, more than 1.11 millionrefugees have returned to Afghanistan without availing themselves of UNHCR’sassistance, bringing the total number of returnees to at least 4.8 million." http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33851.pdf
0
Madverts
I thought you said the UN was "a joke"?
0
SezWho2
Yes. So what? How does that necessitate a war with Afghanistan?
Again, so what? There was no requirement to have been a resident of Kabul in order to govern Afghanistan. I believe there still is not.
Actually, no it doesn't, although your sarcasm is noted. I believe most of the refugees fled before the Taliban took control although there is no question that many fled the Taliban. There are many reasons for return, including:
a) difficulty in making a living in a foreign country, b) expectation that home will be better than before, c) an international "effort" to return refugees, which in some cases may include being less hospitable as hosts, and d) plain ordinary homesickness.
Basically, however, that refugees returned says very little about whether the Taliban kept fairly good control of the country. It more accurately suggests that a good number of people did not like the way the Taliban kept control. Day by day, they seem to be liking Karzai less as well.
0
Antonios_M
That's right. American soldiers must leave from Afganistan. Let people "liberate" themselves.
0
BennyCohen
The US bombs Asians. Millions have died. There is a word for this, and it is not defence.
0
rogerbentham
the taliban does it all - it's their fault. besides being number one as japan knows well, america knows what the taliban is.
0
USARonin
OK... OK...
Pick a side. Everyone who thinks the Alliess are the bad guys stand to my left. Everyone who thinks the Taliban are the bad guys stand to my right.
Holey smokes. I can't believe all the lefties and socialists who believe the Allies are the bad guys. Totally unpredictable. Who woulda guessed?
Back to top