U.S. finds 13 civilians died in Afghanistan strike
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 7 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 26 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
28 Comments
Login to comment
0
smithinjapan
"An operation the American military at first described as a “precision strike” instead killed 13 Afghan civilians and only three militants, the U.S. said Saturday, three days after sending a general to the site to investigate."
It's really hard to know whom to trust these days... on the one hand it's pretty much always "precision strike" reported by the US military and people who will buy into it without question, and then the other side which quickly claims civilian innocents and those who will buy into that. If it's militants claiming the death of civilians it's easy to see how they would 'benefit' from such claims, but when it's regular civilians or other witnesses doing the claiming it's becoming harder and harder not to doubt US claims.
Regardless... this is shocking. They really need to check and recheck their 'intelligence' before attacking. While Karzai's whining is getting out of control and it's clear he's just pandering in some instances, he has a case when he talks about civilian deaths.
0
SuperLib
Smith, did Obama create more terrorists with the strike?
0
likeitis
Obama cannot be held responsible for anything until September 12.
But the answer to the core of your question (Will this help create more terrorists and insurgents who target Americans at home and abroad?) is YES!
America needs to get the heck out of Afghanistan, that is my suggestion number one. Suggestion number two is knock off dropping bombs from the air. If we are going to stick around and try to get the people with us instead of against us, we need to stop the cowardly predator and bomb dropping tactics and go man to man. And if we are unwilling to do that, then see suggestion number one.
0
smithinjapan
SuperLib: "Smith, did Obama create more terrorists with the strike?"
Hahaha... nice try on spin. But as likeitis pointed out, and you need to try and wrap your head around since for some reason you can't see it, the US was in Afghanistan BEFORE Obama took office (look it up), and military who have been in place since bush was in office ordered the strike itself, if you want to get technical.
I do believe it may indeed cause more people to be belligerent towards the US, though, yes... be it people against the war and bush's choice to go in, terrorists world-wide who use this kind of thing to fuel their cause, or the bereaved who are extremely angry and upset at the US military and the country in general for killing their family members.
I also agree with likeitis on the need to stop 'precision' bombing, since it results in less precision striking than it does hitting innocent civilians. It will most certainly pose more risk to troops to be going to these places to conduct missions, but if that saves innocents as well and puts the relationship with Afghanistan in less jeopardy, as well as -- yes -- creating less terrorists, then it's worth it.
0
WayneRooney10
President Obama is smashing em! The terror-makers in Afghanstan, they will get with the showgramme.
0
SuperLib
So you are saying that Obama created more terrorists that day, smith. Just checking.
0
likeitis
Obama bears some responsibility because he had so much power to prevent the tragedy. But GWB still gets the lion's share of blame because he put the troops there including the people running the show RIGHT NOW more directly than the president. And the things Obama wants to do differently in Afghanistan cannot happen in the time he has been in office. Obviously, his level of blame will come as his plans are actually IMPLEMENTED in Afghanistan and not just in the planning stages. Plus he has other messes of GWB to clean up besides Afghanistan.
Blaming Obama more than GWB would be to decry Obama for not being as fast as the Flash or as psychic as Nostradamus.
0
SuperLib
likeitis, it's just a conversation between smith and I based on his past comments, which I'm guessing you weren't a party to. Your desire to help him is commendable, but I'm sure he can speak for himself.
0
likeitis
I am well aware of that. Sorry if I am ruining your fun, but I will ruin his as well for the sake of getting to the truth. I will back up anybody for the truth, even Sarge, and I have. The truth is more important than sport.
0
sailwind
Likeitis
NEWFLASH
He bears ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY for this tragedy. He is the Commander in Chief. The troops are following HIS ORDERS. He is the one who AUTHORIZED this strike in the first place. The buck stops there.
He could cancel the orders for airstrikes on militant targets with just a stroke of his pen.
Bush has nothing to do with his decisions on how he will conduct this war. He has chosen to conduct it the same way as Bush did. Either start to slam him as hard as you did Bush when these strikes happen and civilians are killed, or be called out for being a hypocrite.
0
smithinjapan
SuperLib: "So you are saying that Obama created more terrorists that day, smith. Just checking."
Nope, I'm saying exactly what likeitis did; that, like I said before, these troops did not suddenly appear in January, when Obama was inaugurated. They appeared in Afghanistan long before that, under bush -- so HE bares the blame for them being there, if any president does. The only blame Obama shoulders in any of this is that the troops are still in Afghanistan, but given the stink you guys are putting up about them being pulled from Iraq, you would probably freak out even more by them being pulled from a place they had slightly more reason to be in (though not any more).
Once again, no, Obama did not create more terrorists, because he did not send them there in the first place. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You said you're referring to conversations we've had in the past... would those be the conversations in which I referred to bush sending the troops there in the first place? because last I checked, it's still the case that bush sent them there, and they were in place before Obama arrived. Are you confusing dates and places again?
0
smithinjapan
sailwind: "NEWFLASH: He bears ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY for this tragedy. He is the Commander in Chief. The troops are following HIS ORDERS. He is the one who AUTHORIZED this strike in the first place. The buck stops there. He could cancel the orders for airstrikes on militant targets with just a stroke of his pen."
I think you mean 'newsflash', but hey, no one's perfect. Did he authorize the strike himself directly? or are you simply saying that because he is commander in chief while the people bush ordered to Afghanistan for war are there he indirectly ordered this strike? I hope you're not inferring the latter, because if you are it's going to be fun watching you explain to us why bush (indirectly) ordered and is responsible for the boys in Haditha slaughtering a town full of innocents. And of course, how bush is responsible for 9/11, etc.
"Either start to slam him as hard as you did Bush when these strikes happen and civilians are killed, or be called out for being a hypocrite."
Same to you... you defended bush left, right, and center for the things that he actually did directly, let alone indirectly, and now you are bashing Obama for situations the former created. That's FAR more hypocritical than anything anyone on here is suggesting. Next you'll be saying we have to blame Obama for starting the war in Iraq or we're hypocrites.
0
sailwind
He's the Commander and Chief, troops are following his orders. A concept that does seemed lost on you.
Nice try at deflection and bringing something totally off topic, but what the hey.
How many convictions of the so called 'Haditha Massacre'. None, means that they were following the orders of the President and those appointed over them after all.
By the way thats part of the Oath you take when you enlist.
I'm not bashing Obama at all. Using targeted airstrikes to kill the bad guys is the only way to go. It means less coffins on our side if they have to go in their in force to get these rats. Hard to fathom where you got that I'm bashing Obama.
I think now that he is the Commander and Chief and has looked at the best way to conduct this war. He has chosen pretty much the same as Bush did. I have yet to see you criticize him for that.
But boy you sure did Bush.
Nice to see your rhetorical jumping jacks on this one though mainly your try at deflection from the fact Obama just allowed an airstrike that killed innocent civilians and the best you can do....."Well, it's okay now because it's really Bush's fault after all".
0
smithinjapan
sailwind: "A concept that does seemed lost on you."
Not at all: I was simply asking you if the President specifically signed off on this strike before it occurred, as you seem to imply he did, or if the generals on the ground did it themselves. We both know there is a major difference, you are just choosing to defer this to the behest of the president, and I doubt very much that while he's busy fixing the economy he stopped and said, "Oh, yes, please do attack Herat at this very moment". As such, if he did not know specifically of the attack before hand, how could he prevent it before it occurred, aside from pulling all troops out of Afghanistan or ordering a halt to all operations until he can review and approve them?
I'll tell you what, you show me proof that Obama signed an order to bomb this place at the time it happened, and I'll agree with you that it's his fault directly. My guess is that you cannot, for the reasons I have mentioned.
"Nice try at deflection and bringing something totally off topic, but what the hey."
Not really... it was a direct address to your accusation of hypocrisy... errr... your demand that we either blame this on Obama or say that bush was innocent of of this and that.
"Using targeted airstrikes to kill the bad guys is the only way to go. It means less coffins on our side if they have to go in their in force to get these rats."
This is slightly off where we've been arguing to date, but this is where we are going to disagree on moral grounds. I'm sorry, but I don't put the life of an American troop above a small Afghan child, and as such I don't think you should bomb from above and risk killing innocents, as has clearly happened again and again, when things are precarious enough to being with, to save one or two troops. What's more, since it's been proven in this and other cases that the majority if not all of the 'precision targets' were actually innocents, the troops would have been in no danger whatsoever.
I daresay they are in more danger now, though.
0
smithinjapan
sailwind: Clicked 'submit' too early.
"I think now that he is the Commander and Chief and has looked at the best way to conduct this war. He has chosen pretty much the same as Bush did. I have yet to see you criticize him for that."
I have criticized him, actually, on a couple of issues related to both Afghanistan and Iraq, and issues where he seems to be towing the party line (of the previous party). I chided him when he said it may take longer to remove troops from Iraq than previously expected, and have said it's a shame that when he DOES remove troops, as promised, things are going to go to the dogs. In both cases, though, you're right, I did blame the source of the problems, whose name even I am getting sick of saying.
'Nice to see your rhetorical jumping jacks on this one though mainly your try at deflection from the fact Obama just allowed an airstrike that killed innocent civilians and the best you can do....."Well, it's okay now because it's really Bush's fault after all".'
Your words, and not at all mine. Again, though, show me a signed declaration where Obama allowed this mission, or some indication that he authorized it directly, and I'll completely admit that you are correct. If we're back to the 'he is commander in chief and therefore the war in Afghanistan is his fault' argument, well, you can call blaming the correct source 'deflection' all you want, but I stand behind the truth that this war started with bush, and he put the troops there. If you can prove that they somehow haven't been there for 8 years and it was all our imagination as they magically appeared a month and a half ago... I'll be pretty surprised.
0
sailwind
Smith
Your a fan of Micheal Moore?
It's from his website.
Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people.
Four days after assuming the presidency, he was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks. Although Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=13243
I'm pretty sure he was consulted about this one also. These strikes are always "touchy" to say the least. Given that fact I can much pretty much bet the ranch he was consulted and approved of it in advance also.
By the way the target of this strike,
A Coalition forces precision strike targeted Gholam Yahya Akbari, a key insurgent commander, near Gozara district, Heart province, Feb. 16. Killed in the attack were up to 15 militants suspected of associating with Yahya.
According to CENTCOM. Think the President wasn't consulted first and then gave permission to authorize an Airstrike on this guy?
0
WayneRooney10
Mr Obama is smashing the terror makers! He is authorising all sorts of things. 17 thousand more troops are off to smash the Talibaners. You can read it in The Mail.
0
smithinjapan
Sailwind: "Your a fan of Michael Moore?"
Yes and no. He makes some wicked points in his films, but I find he gets a little to sentimental at times in his work, and in particular in his writing. "Stupid White Men", for example, is a novel that starts off pretty good, but then goes off in a very bizarre direction about half-way through that becomes clearly personal in nature. He starts asking people not to 'pleasure themselves' too much and suggesting that Ralph Nader would be the best president for the US, etc.
He nails bush VERY well in his movies, though... as he does the lack of reasoning with the war in Iraq, Patriot Act, etc. I'll check out the link a little later... but have to run after addressing a couple points.
"Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for his first military action yesterday, missile strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan which killed at least 18 people."
Show me that article and I'll gladly heap criticism on the man if it proved to kill innocents. I'll heap it on him anyway for attacking a US ally in 'the war on terror'. That's not this attack, though.
"lthough Obama has abandoned many of the "war on terror" policies of George Bush while he was president, he is not retreating from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders."
I never said he SHOULD desist from the hunt for Bin Laden. That was not this attack, though.
"I'm pretty sure he was consulted about this one also."
Not good enough, although I greatly appreciate your post and the efforts you take to show me just how involved Obama is in the decisions. Good detective work.
0
Sarge
"Obama did not create more terrorists"
Oh, but if if Bush was still president, he most definitely would have created more terrorists.
"Karzai, who has stepped up demands that U.S. amd NATO operations kill no civilians"
I'm afraid Karzai is living in fantasy-land. There is no way to guarantee no civilian casualties in military operations against terrorists who actually target civilians and who hide among them.
0
SushiSake3
smithinjapan - "I'm sorry, but I don't put the life of an American troop above a small Afghan child, and as such I don't think you should bomb from above and risk killing innocents, as has clearly happened again and again, when things are precarious enough to being with, to save one or two troops."
Hear, hear.
smithinjapan - "If you can prove that they somehow haven't been there for 8 years and it was all our imagination as they magically appeared a month and a half ago... I'll be pretty surprised."
LOL!
0
SushiSake3
Sailwind, so you're against hunting down the mastermind of 911?
Your military folk have been rather bogged down in the wrong country for the past 6 years. I think that at its worst, President Obama is on the right track by injecting more forces into Afghanistan - where they should have been in the first place before that idiot president Bush you voted for twice put them in Iraq.
0
SushiSake3
Sarge - "I'm afraid Karzai is living in fantasy-land."
Unlike you, of course, who for nearly 7 years has frantically believed that **The Front Line On The War On Terror **(c) was where your beloved president bush told you it was.
In Iraq. LOL!
0
Sarge
SushiSake#3 - "Your military folk have been bogged down in the wrong country"
SushiSake#3 is apparently unaware that terrorists don't operate out of just one country. LOL!
0
SuperLib
It is amazing to watch, isn't it?
Smith's position seems to be that Obama's strike, which killed civilians, which created terrorists under Bush, didn't create terrorists under Obama because Bush was the one who originally ordered the troops to be in that part of the world, as if the families of those killed, the ones who used to become terrorists under Bush's watch because their loved ones were killed, won't become terrorists now. Or maybe they will become terrorists but it's Bush's fault they did?
I'm actually not sure what smith is trying to say in the end. It's all very convoluted to me. He's either abandoning his "air strikes create terrorists" position or he's keeping it and simply blaming Bush for Obama's air strikes. Which do you think it is, sail?
0
likeitis
Actually, that was directed at me Super.
What Sailwind is overlooking is that I did not wake up one fine morning in Feb 2001 and start slamming Bush like I do today. Its been an process of years that might have reached its peak in 2006.
Chill. Give it time. All Obama has to do is be as idiotic and short-shortsighted as Bush was and prove it time and time again and I will be as critical. I would not hold my breath on Obama doing that though.
I have said my piece on this airstrike. And I cannot remember ever criticizing Bush directly for airstrikes. I never imagined them as being dreamed up and ordered directly by the President. My image was that if the President ever got wind of it before hand, it was just to give final approval on a plan submitted by the military. I don't expect any President to second guess his men so much. But I do hope to God that Obama will either end the cowardly airstrikes or change his mind about Afghanistan.
Anything else would be repeating myself, but I will: Afghanistan is a mess started by Bush. Obama is just dealing with it. There is nothing hypocritical in that stance. You won't find any post by me jumping up and down on firefighters for failing to put out a blaze. I might say they could have done better, but obviously, I am going to blame the arsonist. Hem and haw as you might, nothing is going to change that order of things. There is no favoritism employed by me, just a cold look at what there is to see.
0
SuperLib
My comments were directed at smith. But my guess is he won't respond.
Back to top