US airstrike in Afghanistan killed 60 children

[MobBoss]

Can ye at least be honest enough to admit that no one has retracted anything???

Just as soon as your honest enough to say the original death toll was vastly over stated.

 

[RedRalph]

Just as soon as your honest enough to say the original death toll was vastly over stated.

If an organisation which isnt the Us military, and has no motivation to come to that conclusion says so, I will indeed admit it. I dont know any better than you, the difference is I'm not taking the word of the Us military on it, seeing as how they have covered this type of thig up before.

 

[MobBoss]

If an organisation which isnt the Us military, and has no motivation to come to that conclusion says so, I will indeed admit it.

And whats your reasoning or proof to prove that such would be more accurate? Honestly.

 

[Patroklos]

Its a good thing the UN never covers anything up!

 

[MobBoss]

Its a good thing the UN never covers anything up!

Ouch. /10 chars.

 

[RedRalph]

And whats your reasoning or proof to prove that such would be more accurate? Honestly.

OK, MB. i'll try and make it simple for you. In law, you dont ask a suspect in a murder to do an inquiry into wether they are guilty or not. you dont take their word for it when they conclude they arent. you wait for someone who has no reason to want them convicted or set free (the court) to investigate and come to a conclusion. IF the court concludes that they were innocent, I'll agree they werre innocent. but I'm not going to take the suspects plea as proof of their innocence.

If this analogy dosent clarify my reasoning to you, dont bother telling me because this is so easy to understand and you are being so frustratingly obtuse about it I'm not bothered to try and explain again.

 

[Patroklos]

OK, MB. i'll try and make it simple for you. In law, you dont ask a suspect in a murder to do an inquiry into wether they are guilty or not.

Thats exactly why we are not taking the word of the Afghans for it, and rather had a third party collect physical evidence.

 

[sonorakitch]

Can ye at least be honest enough to admit that no one has retracted anything???

I prefer "refined" actually. Or "clarified".

~Chris

 

[MobBoss]

OK, MB. i'll try and make it simple for you. In law, you dont ask a suspect in a murder to do an inquiry into wether they are guilty or not.

Of course you do. If you dont question your suspects then you really dont get the entire picture of what may have occurred.

Btw, do you understand the concept of an Internal Affairs investigation? The US Army Criminal Investigation Command that works independantly of unit commands? How the Inspector Generals office mandate works?

Apparently not.

RRW, stick to analogies you understand. Your out of your depth on this one.

you dont take their word for it when they conclude they arent.

No, but you dont automatically take the word of one side over the other either.

you wait for someone who has no reason to want them convicted or set free (the court) to investigate and come to a conclusion.

And part of that investigation is what? Questioning the accused.

IF the court concludes that they were innocent, I'll agree they werre innocent. but I'm not going to take the suspects plea as proof of their innocence.

Again, you assume that the court itself is exempt from error or colusion. This isnt true of the UN.

Now do you see the error in your analogy?

If this analogy dosent clarify my reasoning to you, dont bother telling me because this is so easy to understand and you are being so frustratingly obtuse about it I'm not bothered to try and explain again.

Again, try analogy that you understand more, and maybe it would make more sense.

 

[RedRalph]

Of course you do. If you dont question your suspects then you really dont get the entire picture of what may have occurred.

you question them, you dont take their word for it.

Btw, do you understand the concept of an Internal Affairs investigation? The US Army Criminal Investigation Command that works independantly of unit commands? How the Inspector Generals office mandate works?

Apparently not.

and you expect the whole world to take their word for it?

RRW, stick to analogies you understand. Your out of your depth on this one.

No I amnt, but you are as usual ignorant to your own prejudices. dont worry though, they are glaring to everyone else.

No, but you dont automatically take the word of one side over the other either.

Praise the lawd, the brutha sees the light

And part of that investigation is what? Questioning the accused.

but not just taking their word for it.

Again, you assume that the court itself is exempt from error or colusion. This isnt true of the UN.

Now do you see the error in your analogy?

Its not true of any court system on Earth, so do you now see the error in your refutation of my analogy?

Again, try analogy that you understand more, and maybe it would make more sense.

Nah sorry my good friend, you are wrong on this one, but dont worry, I expect youre getting quite used to it by now.

 

[MobBoss]

you question them, you dont take their word for it.

Of course you dont. However, you need to realize that the US military does have a variety of self-checks and internal investigation organizations whose mandate is precisely to look into these sort of things. Your assumption that they are corrupt since they all work for the government is ill conceived since you're ignorant of their level of autonomy and mandate.

and you expect the whole world to take their word for it?

One, I dont really care what the whole world thinks because the whole world doesnt have the best interest of the USA in mind. However, it is in the best interest of the USA to mitigate civilian casualties and if there is a violation of the RoE, to fully hold those responsible accountable for the action. Whats important is that we have done whats right and proper in conducting such an investigation.....what the world thinks of that is immaterial. For instance, your own belief of the situation. Nothing the USA can do or say in the conduct of a perfectly legitimate investigation would quell your own paranoia. Therefore why should we care what you think?

No I amnt, but you are as usual ignorant to your own prejudices. dont worry though, they are glaring to everyone else.

Really? Why dont you ask pat how glaring my prejudices are here.

Praise the lawd, the brutha sees the light

Bubby, you may wish to reread my earlier posts in this thread. I have been consistent in saying this the entire time. I dont make the assumptions that you do in the OP.

 

[JollyRoger]

I prefer "refined" actually. Or "clarified".

~Chris

"Repeated" works for me.

 

[RedRalph]

From BBC.co.uk

US forces in Afghanistan are re-opening an investigation into a US air attack last month which reportedly killed many civilians.

The US military says there is new information about the raid on the Taleban in western Herat province.

The US had previously disputed claims by local people that as many as 90 civilians were killed in the attack.

It comes as Human Rights Watch warned such attacks were undermining Afghan support for Nato and US troops.

The New York-based rights group said civilian deaths from international air strikes nearly tripled between 2006 and 2007.

The reliance on few ground forces and overwhelming air power was leading to "mistakes" that had "dramatically decreased" support for the Afghan government and international troops, the group said.

"Civilian deaths from air strikes act as a recruiting tool for the Taleban and risk fatally undermining the international effort to provide basic security to the people of Afghanistan," Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), said in a statement.

Fresh graves

The report comes two weeks after US-led air and ground strikes on Azizabad village in Shindand, Herat.

The US said seven civilians had been killed in what was a successful operation to target a Taleban commander.

The US and Nato need to dramatically improve their co-ordination with each other and with the government of Afghanistan

Rachel Reid
Human Rights Watch

But video footage from mobile phones allegedly showing dozens of dead bodies has given increasing credibility to claims by local residents that up to 90 civilians were killed in the attack.

The footage allegedly shows bodies - many of them women and children - lined up in a mosque in the village.

Both the Afghan government and the United Nations have already carried out their own investigations into the attack.

They say the video evidence, and the presence of a large number of fresh graves in the village, confirm the accounts of local people.

On Sunday, the senior US commander in Afghanistan, David McKiernan, said that in light of new evidence, he had asked for the American investigation to be reopened.

Damaged reputation

Human Rights Watch found that in 2008 at least 321 Afghan civilians had been killed in international air strikes - a rise from at least 230 in 2006.

This figure was much lower than the number of civilians killed in militant attacks, the group pointed out. Nearly 950 people were killed by insurgents in 2008, compared with 700 in 2006.

HRW said most of the air strike casualties occurred in unplanned raids, when air power was called to give support to troops on the ground.

"The US and Nato need to dramatically improve their co-ordination with each other and with the government of Afghanistan," HRW's Rachel Reid told the BBC.

"We're calling on the military to use precision-guided, low collateral damage munitions whenever possible... especially in densely-populated areas."

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly warned the US and Nato that civilian deaths undermine his government and damages the reputation of foreign forces in the country.

Still 100% confident its only 7 bodies, lads?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

From BBC.co.uk



Still 100% confident its only 7 bodies, lads?

Considering I know several people who were part of that operation and have spoken with them. Yes.

I also know that with the way a typical village in this AO is laid out, you would need to use something like naplam to hit 60 in one sitting. Considering I've seen Kalats take direct hits from 2000 pounders and only crack the walls of the sun dried mud that becomes as hard as steel over the years, I do not doubt at all there is something going on here that is a lot more than the news knows or is reporting.

 

[RedRalph]

Considering I know several people who were part of that operation and have spoken with them. Yes.

I also know that with the way a typical village in this AO is laid out, you would need to use something like naplam to hit 60 in one sitting. Considering I've seen Kalats take direct hits from 2000 pounders and only crack the walls of the sun dried mud that becomes as hard as steel over the years, I do not doubt at all there is something going on here that is a lot more than the news knows or is reporting.

How can you be sure if David McKiernan no longer is? why would they reopen the investigation if they still knew for a fact it was only 7 bodies?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

How can you be sure if David McKiernan no longer is? why would they reopen the investigation if they still knew for a fact it was only 7 bodies?

I can't speak for his motivations but chances are someone is jerking his chain. I am sure there are more than seven bodies from the entire firefight and combat that took place along with said airstrikes. Chances are this investigation will show that. Considering the ammount of press this is getting, it makes sense. Shame everyone glosed over the ammount of civilians the militants have kill, but again that is no suprise.

 

[RedRalph]

I can't speak for his motivations but chances are someone is jerking his chain. I am sure there are more than seven bodies from the entire firefight and combat that took place along with said airstrikes. Chances are this investigation will show that. Considering the ammount of press this is getting, it makes sense. Shame everyone glosed over the ammount of civilians the militants have kill, but again that is no suprise.

With all due respect Bronx Warlord, I'm not going to take your word for it, and I'm sure you'd think less of me if I did.

As I said, I'm not claiming to know for sure what happened, but up until now the only entity who said the US hadnt killed up to 70 civilians was the US military, and now they arent even sure. It might turn out there was only 7 bodies. but I'm not taking the word of the accused over that, and I think you'd agree yourself it would be pretty stupid to do so.

 

[RedRalph]

More on this (not specifically this incident but in general) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/08/afghanistan.usa

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

I can't speak for his motivations but chances are someone is jerking his chain. I am sure there are more than seven bodies from the entire firefight and combat that took place along with said airstrikes. Chances are this investigation will show that. Considering the ammount of press this is getting, it makes sense. Shame everyone glosed over the ammount of civilians the militants have kill, but again that is no suprise.

It also a shame that the government in Kabul is not formally recognized by the majority of Afgans mulit-ethnic and tribal lines. So it is the habit of the Western Media to portray all skirmishes and strife as they are all Taliban.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

It also a shame that the government in Kabul is not formally recognized by the majority of Afgans mulit-ethnic and tribal lines. So it is the habit of the Western Media to portray all skirmishes and strife as they are all Taliban.

Depends on were you go really, I've seen pictures of Karzi hung on walls and billbords and some people do love him. Some could care less. It's no diffrent than anywere else. Considering most of this country can't read, do you expect them to care?