Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

U.S. denies 147 civilians killed in Afghan violence

World May. 09, 2009 - 05:42AM JST ( 23 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

23 Comments

0

jeancolmarMay. 09, 2009 - 10:12AM JST

“Extremely over-exaggerated” is bad English. It is also a cheap lie to cover up that once again the US military has blown away innocent civilians.
0

SargeMay. 09, 2009 - 10:15AM JST

"Taliban fighters caused at least some of the deaths"

No way!
0

Den DenMay. 09, 2009 - 10:25AM JST

I agree with Sarge. US is butchering civilians.
0

SargeMay. 09, 2009 - 10:27AM JST

Den Den - It's our way.
0

SuperLibMay. 09, 2009 - 12:13PM JST

jeancolmar: It is also a cheap lie to cover up that once again the US military has blown away innocent civilians.

Says who? You?
0

smithinjapanMay. 09, 2009 - 03:37PM JST

SuperLib: "Says who? You?"

This would not be the first time the US lied, then later admitted, then later admitted MORE, etc. even this year alone. Hell, do a search and you can come up with more than a few threads on this site alone... But here's a quick link to a recent one in April where 'militants' killed by the US army were later 'admitted to be innocents' (women and children).

http://www.watoday.com.au/world/us-military-admits-killing-mother-children-20090410-a2la.html

That's one link of many on that case alone, and here's a general page for links of US forces killing civilians.

http://stpeteforpeace.org/support.troops.html
0

sailwindMay. 09, 2009 - 03:57PM JST

Two NATO soldiers were killed in a suicide attack in Helmand province Thursday, the alliance announced. The blast also killed 21 civilians and wounded 23 others, said Daud Ahmadi, a spokesman for Helmand’s governor.

I wonder if the Taliban are going to say the body count was extremely under-exaggerated on this operation they conducted today. You'd think since they used a suicide bomber he could have waited until the two NATO troops where away from the civilian population. After all it isn't like a JDAM, once it's released you can't call it back.
0

CZAR202030May. 09, 2009 - 11:22PM JST

America's awr against teh Tliban was a sure defeat! They installed a notorious and corrupted man Zadari to become that country's preseident! That was an insult and thats why he was seen as a puppet! America was killing innocent people as apretext for their childidh war and they see killing 1000 innocents was justified ! If the Pakistan govt falls, america will be dragged into another conflict and this is deadly,pakistan has nuclear arsenals!
0

MadvertsMay. 09, 2009 - 11:31PM JST

"Zadari to become that country's preseident!"

Uhm...he's called Karzai.
0

SuperLibMay. 10, 2009 - 12:42AM JST

smithinjapan: This would not be the first time the US lied

Sorry, you're right. jeancolmar's accusations need no supporting evidence at all.
0

TriumvereMay. 10, 2009 - 01:17AM JST

Smith:

"This would not be the first time the US lied, then later admitted, then later admitted MORE, etc. even this year alone."

Nor would it be the first time that the number of deaths caused by US forces was grossly exaggerated. Frankly, I don't see why you would trust either side. Do you seriously think that either the Army or the villagers or anyone else knows exactly who killed who? The Army just issues automatic denials and the US-detractors automatic accusations.
0

goodDonkeyMay. 10, 2009 - 01:55AM JST

Collateral damage is the accidental death of civilians. I want the U.S. to keep true civilian casualties to an absolute minimum. I believe it is the humane thing to do. However eventually it will happen; especially in urban warfare and gorilla warfare. Since the terrorists often integrate themselves among the civilians we can expect a higher rate of collateral damage.

Terrorists may not be considered a military soldier but they are still an enemy combatant. Any enemy combatant may be targeted.

I guess you need to have served in the military to understand that. Maybe not, most people understand it just fine.

I guess just because you understand something doesn't mean you have to be honest about it.
0

Helter_SkelterMay. 10, 2009 - 02:55AM JST

However eventually it will happen; especially in urban warfare

During the Bush administration, the left called civilian casualties war crimes. Now, under Obama, they're just saying sh*t happens. :-D

The "compassionate" left has never really cared about civilian casualties. They only pretend to care when there's political gain to be had.
0

goodDonkeyMay. 10, 2009 - 03:39AM JST

When I say I am unhappy with civilian casualties I am being sincere. I will be glad to measure my honesty up with those who state I am not telling the truth. I will let others draw their own conclusions. I just wish it was easier for people to read our history of comments. JT truncates them and it can be difficult to find previous references.

I have spent long periods of time trying to put a human face on the Muslims of the world. I don't feel the differences as much as I feel the similarities. This can be seen throughout my history of posts. Others have never had one good thing to say about any Muslim. It is quite ironic that "political gain" is mentioned as a motive from someone whose post is comparing the "war crimes" of one president to another. I merely defined terms in a factual analysis. I added my concerns over the death of civilians.
0

smithinjapanMay. 10, 2009 - 01:24PM JST

Triumvere: "Frankly, I don't see why you would trust either side."

I don't, to be honest. This article makes it clear that there are suspicions on all sides. Where I put in my two cents was only to remind those that say without a doubt that the US is right that they have lied in plenty of recent cases to make themselves look better, and because things in Afghanistan in particular are exacerbated by civilian deaths. They later come to admit they denied the truth before. I'm willing to bet both parties are exaggerating in this case.
0

smithinjapanMay. 10, 2009 - 01:30PM JST

Helter_Skelter: "During the Bush administration, the left called civilian casualties war crimes. Now, under Obama, they're just saying sh*t happens"

You have that backwards, my friend. What's more, many on 'the Left' have decried Obama previous threads related to this topic and say it is indeed tarnishing his reputation, and if he 'stays the course' that bush started with relation to Afghanistan, and even bolster things, he can and will go down as contributing to war crimes in that regard. Where we have pointed out some clear differences, which of course you clearly ignore, is that when Obama stepped into office in January he was not suddenly a war criminal for what was going on under bush's watch that he inherited.

Anyway, it's good that you can at least finally admit, by your own little challenge thrown out there, that bush is a war criminal.

And yes, we do care about the civilians, which people like myself are on here defending AGAIN today (or did you not see my post earlier in this thread where I post all the similar instances of the US covering up the number of innocent deaths saying they were 'militants' and later admitting they were civilians?). The statement that people don't care about the innocents and only about the politics is best addressed to people like yourself in particular, who say the Palestinians in refugee camps mean nothing and Israel is right, etc. bla bla bla. But that's another topic -- simply wanted to show how hypocritical you are.