PDA

View Full Version : Dispute Over Deadly US Afghan Raid



Psychoblues
01-26-2009, 04:17 AM
But, but, but, they were all TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NEWS CENTRAL/S. Asia

A claim by US forces in Afghanistan that they killed 15 Taliban fighters in the eastern province of Laghman, has been disputed by village elders.

A US statement said on Saturday that soldiers killed the fighters after coming under fire from opposition fighters.

But the elders say all those who died were civilians.

"The operation in Mehtar Lam District, approximately 60km northeast of Kabul City, targeted a Taliban commander believed to conduct terrorist activities throughout the Kabul, Laghman and Kapisa provinces," a US military statement said.

"As coalition forces approached the wanted militant's compound, several groups of armed militants exited their homes and began manoeuvering on the force."

Nine fighters were killed by small-arms fire and four killed by "precision close-air support", the statement said, adding that two other fighters were killed during a subsequent serach of the houses in the compound.

'Civilians killed'

One of the attackers killed in the initial fight was later identified as female, the US military statement said.




But Abdul Rahmzai, head of the provincial council in Laghman, said village elders had told him in the hours after the raid that those killed were civilians.

Rahmzai relayed questions from the Associated Press news agency to the village elders directly, who responded by saying that swear on the Quran that all those killed were innocent.

They said that women and children were among the dead, and told Rahmzai that they have no link to Taliban fighters.

Independent assessment by journalists and human-rights monitors of the competing claims is complicated by the level of danger in the territory to unarmed outsiders.

Competing claims

While Afghan villagers have been accused of inflating civilian death claims to receive more compensation, the US military has in the past been charged with not fully acknowledging the deaths of civilians due to its raids.

In the immediate wake of a battle in August in the village of Azizabad, the US military said no civilians were killed.

Eventually a US investigation found that 33 civilians had been killed in that raid.

The Afghan government and the UN said that 90 civilians died in the incident.

Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, said last week that the US and countries serving in the Nato military alliance are continuing air raids in civilian areas, despite his call for them to stop.

Kabul recently sent Nato headquarters a draft agreement that would give Afghanistan more control over future Nato deployments in the country.

The draft also says that Nato troops should no longer conduct searches of Afghan homes.

The US military is facing a stern challenge in maintaining order in Afghanistan in the face of a resurgent Taliban.

Extra troops

US marines are ready to leave Iraq quickly so that 20,000 soldiers can be sent to Afghanistan, James Conway, Marine Corps commandant, said on Friday.

"The time is right for marines to leave Iraq," the senior marine officer said.

About 2,200 marines are currently serving in Afghanistan, as part of the 34,000-strong US military contingent there.

In all, US military planners are expected to deploy a total of 30,000 extra troops to the country in the next 12 to 18 months, reflecting the emphasis that Barack Obama, the US president, is putting on the war in Afghanistan.

And while the US prepares to boost its forces, Karzai is coming under international pressure over the efficacy of his leadership.

"They have been holding on to Karzai in the hope of bringing about some semblance of governance in Afghanistan but recently Nato secretary-general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said that the problems in Afghanistan stem from governance rather than from terrorism," Imtiaz Gul, a political analyst in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, told Al Jazeera.

"If we are to go by what Scheffer says, Karzai's days are numbered. There are going to be very tough elections in Afghanistan in the next few months."


More: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/01/20091248128328968.html

Bombs don't sort through the innocents.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Yurt
01-26-2009, 01:14 PM
can't blame bush now

Psychoblues
01-28-2009, 10:41 PM
Are you still blaming bush, yuk?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!



can't blame bush now

Is this to be your modem operandi from now on or what?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?! I would imagine that this President, Barack Hussein Obama, will be cleaning up the messes bush made for his entire period in office. In fact, I think the next 5 Presidents will be cleaning up the disasters of one gwb, but that is not was implied by me or the writer of the article that I posted in the OP.

You're a sick one, yuk. No wonder that law firm fired your miserable ass!!!!!!!!!

Cool one?!?!?!????!?!?!?!?!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Psychoblues
02-04-2009, 04:37 AM
Killing civilians not an adequate subject for discussion with the normal DP crowd?!?!?!?!?!?!??! Not to imply that any of us are normal?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Just saying,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Something to trigger the thoughts?!?!?!?!?!?!?!???!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

PostmodernProphet
02-04-2009, 08:09 AM
every terrorist carried to the hospital without his weapon becomes a civilian.....there are villages in Afghanistan that are harboring terrorists willingly......what do you expect the village elders are going to say when fifteen of them get killed in their village?......

Psychoblues
02-04-2009, 09:32 AM
You're obviously not a veteran and have never seen war up close and personal, pimp.



every terrorist carried to the hospital without his weapon becomes a civilian.....there are villages in Afghanistan that are harboring terrorists willingly......what do you expect the village elders are going to say when fifteen of them get killed in their village?......

It's more complicated than you imply, cowgirl.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

PostmodernProphet
02-04-2009, 09:55 AM
You're obviously not a veteran and have never seen war up close and personal, pimp.


true enough....I've never been an elder of a village harboring terrorists either.....doesn't mean it isn't obvious to everyone sober.....

Psychoblues
02-04-2009, 10:05 AM
Soooooooooo, letting the bombs sort them out is your final answer!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!



true enough....I've never been an elder of a village harboring terrorists either.....doesn't mean it isn't obvious to everyone sober.....

Sobering thought, isn't it?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!???!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

emmett
02-04-2009, 10:20 AM
One way for Obahaha not to have to accept responsibility for anything he does is to continue to blame GW for everything. So basically, he isn't really going to be the president or CIC.

Here is a question for the Libs.


Was GW right about the surge? (extra credit for yes / no answers)


PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT an advocate of the Iraqi War! I am a realist however. The surge worked and brought an end to the problems. A CNN poll taken just before the surge found that 81% of respondants said it would not work. Look it up your self! You all probably remember it anyway!

Here is another question for ya. (If you dare be honest)

Who was more dignified, Dems or Repubs, in the confromation process, comparing the choice of two Supreme Court Justices to an entire staff of Cabinet and Secretary choices?

It took less chamber time to confirm all of Obahaha's choices than it did to log just the questions by Ted Kennedy. LMFAOROF!

OBAMA IS A FUCK UP!!!! He is unqualified, unable and will fail miserably. Libs will never admit it despite the fact that it will make them look stupid.

Psychoblues
02-04-2009, 10:33 AM
Your premise considering the "surge" is faulty, emmie. I suggest you refer to the commanding generals and their opinions of it.



One way for Obahaha not to have to accept responsibility for anything he does is to continue to blame GW for everything. So basically, he isn't really going to be the president or CIC.

Here is a question for the Libs.


Was GW right about the surge? (extra credit for yes / no answers)


PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT an advocate of the Iraqi War! I am a realist however. The surge worked and brought an end to the problems. A CNN poll taken just before the surge found that 81% of respondants said it would not work. Look it up your self! You all probably remember it anyway!

Here is another question for ya. (If you dare be honest)

Who was more dignified, Dems or Repubs, in the confromation process, comparing the choice of two Supreme Court Justices to an entire staff of Cabinet and Secretary choices?

It took less chamber time to confirm all of Obahaha's choices than it did to log just the questions by Ted Kennedy. LMFAOROF!

OBAMA IS A FUCK UP!!!! He is unqualified, unable and will fail miserably. Libs will never admit it despite the fact that it will make them look stupid.

And your assertion that President Barack Hussein Obama is somehow blaming the 'lil one for anything is absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you have any links to rectify any of that?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

The libs in the congress are the ones trashing some appointees by President Barack Hussein Obama even though they certainly have the numbers to confirm anyone that he might recommend. That's a shallow thought that you haven't had yet, isn't it?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!!?

Something to clear the senses?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues