Airstrike in Afghanistan

[topol-m]

True, but on the other hand I doubt there would be NATO transports going through these regions. Anyways, what I meant is, that we could try to penalize them somehow without actually killing them or threatening their lives directly. Bombing the shit out of them we will never end the war.

 

Agree. I hope those who dropped the bombs and those who guided them weren`t drunk too.

[GGTharos]

That's a statement in poor taste. Shall we accuse the Cuban MiG-29 pilots who shot down those Cessna's of being drunk too?

HOw about the Russian forces at the Beslan incident?

 

Be careful what you say. ;)

There seems to be a policy to destroy vehicles that are left behind and in some cases this policy might be inappropriate - it has nothing to do with drunkenness.

 

Agree. I hope those who dropped the bombs and those who guided them weren`t drunk too.

[topol-m]

:thumbup: Obviously i don`t think pilots are flying and dropping bombs while drunk. It`s the fact that you kill 100 people and then organize a party and get drunk like a pig what`s making me write that statement. What kind of lack of professionalism is that? And what image for the army are these guys creating after all? Now that`s a poor taste.

Edited September 9, 2009 by topol-m

[GGTharos]

In any army where the cat's away the mice will play. Any and -all- armies.

[nscode]

There's one army I know where a unit was left without a single officer, yet they stayed ogranized and guarded the border for two weeks. And yes, it was war time. And they were not professionals.

 

edit: come to think of it, there was also an officer in that same army who got drunk and left his radar on for too long. I guess it's all down to individuals.

Edited September 9, 2009 by nscode

[topol-m]

There's one army I know where a unit was left without a single officer, yet they stayed ogranized and guarded the border for two weeks. And yes, it was war time. And they were not professionals.

 

Which one and when?

[RedTiger]

Perhaps because civilians needed fuel ;)

 

I'm aware of the fact that number of casualties is the one of the reasons for this action getting into press and other media...The other reason is US washing it's hands and blaming Germans for it. Actions like this are usually forwarded by US forces to other NATO members ;) We all remember Spanish Hornet pilots refusing to strike civilian targets in Allied Force campaign!

 

Jagged alliance, huh?!

 

I'm home from work now, so let me better explain.

 

I'm aware that they might have needed fuel, but how about you stow the truck somewhere and figure out another way to give them the stolen fuel? Did they intend to sell it? If so, it would be even more imperative that you and your customers are NOT blown up in the process of the transaction. Did they bother to tell them it was stolen: "hey, buyer beware, we stole this fuel from those invader guys. They're probably pretty pissed off about it".

 

My mother has a saying: "I cannot care more for someone else's own well-being than they do". This is what bothers me in these types of situations. This is precisely what NATO (and to a some extent any modern Westernized force) are having to do in these modern conflicts. They have to care about the lives of civilians more than the civilians' own countrymen do. And they have to care to the point of literally fighting with one hand tied behind their back. They have to care to the point that they'll end up sacrificing their own just because their target doesn't have the sense or the scruples to avoid needless death and destruction.

 

Someone steals something valuable. They intentionally put innocent people in harms way by bringing the valuable thing to them. The guys who it was stolen from smack that thieves hard...arguably harder than what was warranted and some innocent people also get smacked. Who's the first finger pointed at? The guys who did the smacking. Uh hello? Are we going to completely discount the fact that the guys who were smacked were THIEVES and purposefully put innocent people in harms way? Are we just going to call that ok and say the other party should have known better?

 

I totally understand that these poor people were just civilians. The other party is a volunteer force of soldiers. Sacrificing soldiers who volunteered for the job rather than putting innocents in harms way is a noble thing. I'd like to think I would rather put my butt on the line than just drop a bomb and take out a city block just to get to one person. I just don't like how quick people seem to not put any blame on the idiots who caused all this.

 

As for the legality, I can't comment because I'm not familiar with what laws or codes could apply to this. If the hammer is dropped on someone about this, I just hope all the facts are examined thoroughly.

Edited September 9, 2009 by RedTiger

[Rhen]

You're unlucky enough to be living in a battlefield. Your country's troops shoot down an enemy aircraft. Should you:

 

a) Go take a look and scavenge as much stuff off it as possible.

b) Find the remains of the pilot and drag him/her through the streets.

c) Call your armed forces so they can crawl over the wreck, and of course accompany them.

d) All the above.

e) None of the above.

 

If you picked anything in categories a-d, then don't be surprised if you're suddenly playing a harp on a cloud, because air forces DO bomb what's left of aircraft so the technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

 

The adult supervision in Afghanistan (whether they're German/NATO/US is immaterial) thought that the fuel trucks might be used as big bombs driven into, at best, a NATO compound, and at worst, into a western-friendly town and detonated.

 

This decision had a chain. That chain ended with the pilots on the aircraft that dropped the bomb. The adult supervision approved it, the pilots executed. There's no way that the pilots can discern Taliban from Afghan civilians, as AFAIK, implanted IFF has yet to be perfected, or desired.

 

It's sad when civilians die. There will always be collateral damage in a war. We hope to minimize needless death, but nevertheless, it will still happen. Few other military organizations actually try to minimize civilian casualties. NATO, fortunately, is one of those organizations.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Everything from a) to d) is about an aircraft. We are talking about a truck that was immobilized, not able to move. Opponent does not have anything but the Ak-47, so you can circle around and pick the best time and and the best way to destroy the truck.

 

You don't know how the life it is without the fuel. In very recent history, a sanctions were imposed on a country in Balkan peninsula with the objective of keeping a dictator in power. People struggled to survive with no fuel for cars and buses.

 

I am saying this because I do know what was in the minds of those in Afghanistan who rushed to get a gallon or so of fuel. Maybe they needed it to take their sick child to a hospital in Kabul.

 

I fully support our military decision to destroy that truck. But certainly not in a way they did it.

 

 

You're unlucky enough to be living in a battlefield. Your country's troops shoot down an enemy aircraft. Should you:

 

a) Go take a look and scavenge as much stuff off it as possible.

b) Find the remains of the pilot and drag him/her through the streets.

c) Call your armed forces so they can crawl over the wreck, and of course accompany them.

d) All the above.

e) None of the above.

 

If you picked anything in categories a-d, then don't be surprised if you're suddenly playing a harp on a cloud, because air forces DO bomb what's left of aircraft so the technology doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

 

The adult supervision in Afghanistan (whether they're German/NATO/US is immaterial) thought that the fuel trucks might be used as big bombs driven into, at best, a NATO compound, and at worst, into a western-friendly town and detonated.

 

This decision had a chain. That chain ended with the pilots on the aircraft that dropped the bomb. The adult supervision approved it, the pilots executed. There's no way that the pilots can discern Taliban from Afghan civilians, as AFAIK, implanted IFF has yet to be perfected, or desired.

 

It's sad when civilians die. There will always be collateral damage in a war. We hope to minimize needless death, but nevertheless, it will still happen. Few other military organizations actually try to minimize civilian casualties. NATO, fortunately, is one of those organizations.

[Maximus_G]

Someone steals something valuable. They intentionally put innocent people in harms way by bringing the valuable thing to them. The guys who it was stolen from smack that thieves hard...arguably harder than what was warranted and some innocent people also get smacked. Who's the first finger pointed at? The guys who did the smacking.

I think that's correct, I saw it many times in reporter videos from Afghanistan. Insurgents take something valuable. For example, if there's a firefight, they sit inside a hospital. They've done it many times, so they can estimate CAS reaction time. All is needed is to leave just before the bombs destroy that valuable something. That's the way residential units, hospitals and schools get destroyed, and later official repayments for the dead relatives are made. One can presume what the locals think of it. It repeats again and again, unbelievably.

 

This war has gone totally wrong. I've looked in the eyes of American soldiers there. They strongly reminded me the eyes of the other men there... 25 years ago.

[crazysundog]

The only persons I hold responsible for the deaths of those civilians are the Taliban. They stole the tankers, they got stuck, and they brought the civilians to gather the fuel.

 

Setting aside the outrage from those who are NOT there; This is a war zone.

[Namenlos Ein]

The only persons I hold responsible for the deaths of those civilians are the Taliban. They stole the tankers, they got stuck, and they brought the civilians to gather the fuel.

 

Setting aside the outrage from those who are NOT there; This is a war zone.

O crap! Distance from Washington, D.C. to Kabul, Afghanistan is about 11,150 km (6930 miles). What the hell US Army & Co. doing there?

Soon after the 2001 U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan, however, opium production increased markedly.

 

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29#Drug_trade
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan
  

About this airstrike — it is still under investigation.

 

Germany asks NATO allies to stay silent on Afghanistan airstrike

[jpm1]

Why not ask the hijackers why they decided to drive the stolen truck in an area populated by civilians? If you care enough about their lives, and you personally willing to take on the risks, why not keep away from them?

 

+1

 

GG, I did not say that the truck should be left alone and given to Taliban. What I am saying is why bombing a truck, with so many people around it? From what little info is available, the truck was stuck and could not move and it could be bombed at any time. Or a warning shots could be fired so that the people would flee ... Killing so many people is just plain wrong, not to even mention other legal aspects. Although, it is a vaste of time talking legality with big powers ....

 

Yes, the military has every right and responsibility to destroy its weapons and not allow the other side to use it.

 

 

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

warning shots = get the portable SAM out !

 

these civilian loss are a drama but as the german officer said fuel trucks are a threat it's obvious , so for me the strike was unavoidable . the question is were the civilian stealing fuel or were they forced by the talibans to do so knowing full well the trucks were probably going to be the targets of an allied strike

[crazysundog]

O crap! Distance from Washington, D.C. to Kabul, Afghanistan is about 11,150 km (6930 miles). What the hell US Army & Co. doing there?

 

 

I hope that when you refer to US Army & "Co.", you are cognizant that Russia is included in "Co."

 

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/pm_0246.pdf

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-threatens-attack-on-chechen-ally-afghanistan-716250.html

 

I would guess that Russian casualties (caused by Chechen's extremists trained in Afghan camps) have been avoided by the US & Co. intervention in Afghanistan...of course there would be no definitive proof. The same could be theorized of European countries.

[Namenlos Ein]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/afghanistan/la-fg-afghan-violence6-2009sep06,0,1086419.story

 

 

Villager Abdullah Hanan, who brought an injured cousin to Kabul, the Afghan capital, for treatment, described "fire and smoke in the sky and the bodies of people everywhere."

 

He said another cousin had been killed, and that another of his relatives was hospitalized with burns so severe that doctors had told the family he would almost certainly die. The corpses of those who were closest to the fireball were incinerated, which will make it difficult to determine whether they were fighters or villagers.

 

"I blame Taliban and Americans both," Hanan said. "First the Taliban, who caused this incident, and then Americans, who dropped bombs to kill people."

[crazysundog]

Yes, I think we can all agree that war is hell.

 

This is an unfortunate incident no matter anyone's personal views on the war...

 

I'm afraid any more comment on my part would be in bad taste.

[zakobi]

made myself a quote inspired by one from the fallout universe.

from fallout: War... War never changes...

 

Mine: The face of war changes... But the essence is the same, to kill the other...

 

And that we have to fight for some others right to live, saddens me, that it is even necessary :cry:

Edited September 12, 2009 by zakobi

[CE_Mikemonster]

Shades of grey really, indeed 'who goes out at 2am for petrol', but then it would be rather undignified to admit that you were so poor you sent your eldest son to buy fuel for the house's generator.

 

We can sit here in air conditioned, centrally heated rooms with our bank cards in our wallets and a hypermarket 10mins drive away. Does that give us the right to judge the lives of someone half a world away, living in a culture alien to us and possibly in abject poverty?

 

If I thought it'd do any good then I would have gone to that tanker to scrounge some fuel. Any of us would, if we had a family to support.

 

Saying: 'They should know better - if we dropped more bombs they'd know not to touch stolen goods' is a ridiculous way of talking bout a population you also claim to be protecting. Yes it is applicable in some circumstances, but even then is a very delicate (and blunt) tool.

 

I'm not judging the soldiers involved, by the way. More those who are quick to pass judgment here in this forum.

 

Who knows?

It could be anywhere along the Good-Bad scale in terms of Taliban treachery and Allied misjudgment. Personally i'm shocked and appalled, but then, I know as little as everyone else and am willing to change my mind upon further info.

 

 

This war has gone totally wrong. I've looked in the eyes of American soldiers there. They strongly reminded me the eyes of the other men there... 25 years ago.

 

Be careful to compare. I met countless UK veterans of Afghanistan and they saw it as their job, for both better and worse. It was what they had trained to do.

 

How many firemen on the scene of a car accident look like that? But 1yr on.. they still have the job, right?

[Groove]

The guy who authorized the attack violated the chain of command by authorizing this strike. Im sure he will get some kind of punishment.

 

Besides, stealing gas trucks in a warzone isn't the brightest idea around, especially when your enemy has absolute Air Superiority...

[159th_Viper]

 

Be careful to compare. I met countless UK veterans of Afghanistan and they saw it as their job, for both better and worse. It was what they had trained to do.

 

 

Precisely!

 

It's Universal. Getting Trained to take the Life of Another catches up to you. Memories Linger and the Nightmares, although less frequent, still persist........

[Maximus_G]

Be careful to compare.

 

I wasn't. Just saw the same.

[zakobi]

I don't how many of you play Eve Online, and honestly I don't care, but there exist some chronicles, and i can't stop thinking about A-stan after this story: http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=21-09-09

 

If you got any questions about how things connect, just ask ;)

Edited September 25, 2009 by zakobi

[golfsierra2]

The guy who authorized the attack violated the chain of command by authorizing this strike. Im sure he will get some kind of punishment.

 

 

Speculations, nothing else here..

 

Let's wait and see what the investigation will show. Please stop judging the Colonels decision. Nobody of us was in his shoes then.

[Wilde]

I don't how many of you play Eve Online, and honestly I don't care, but there exist some chronicles, and i can't stop thinking about A-stan after this story: http://www.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=21-09-09

 

If you got any questions about how things connect, just ask ;)

 

Interesting read. Although it's a little hard to follow even for someone, who has been playing Eve Online for a couple of years. Of course it's purely fiction but it gives some good ideas about the motivations for insurgents to fight their oppressors.

 

Somehow even the Star Wars plot fits as a comparison for Afghanistan. It's only a matter of perspective. From theirs (the insurgents') we would be the evil empire.

 

 

That being said, I need to log in again and give those damned Minmatar RP'ers a nice beating. :D

[CE_Mikemonster]

Besides, stealing gas trucks in a warzone isn't the brightest idea around, especially when your enemy has absolute Air Superiority...

 

It's the classic argument of crime and punishment - you're arguing that the punishment needs to be severe in order to deter people from funding others selling on the black market.

 

In an ideal world, if you thought every time you go near the Taliban/Looters you get bombed, you wouldn't go near them, and that argument holds some weight in terms of 'keeping the peace'. From a potential buyer of black market goods, why risk your life for something trivial like a few gallons cheaper fuel?

 

But on what education do you base your assumption that the people buying the fuel had a choice? Like I said, maybe a tractor needs fuel, or a generator (poor examples, but i'm sure we could all think of genuine and good ones).

 

I've already admitted i'm speculating about the incident.

 

I'm not speculating about the attitudes towards the casualties though - some attitides here are crystal clear:

 

'They put themselves in danger, and therefore deserved to die'

 

Quite an odd attitude towards a people that we are there to 'save' from a horrific regime. Hypocritical, even.

 

 

Instead of 'good' and 'bad' like in a Marvell Comic maybe we should think deeper and more realistically. I'm certainly not 'against' hardline options, but i'm not 'for' them either. Whatever tactic works (within the framework of moral 'acceptability' that we ourselves have created as citizens).

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This war has gone totally wrong. I've looked in the eyes of American soldiers there. They strongly reminded me the eyes of the other men there... 25 years ago.

 

I understand that you saw the same, but was this during combat (i.e. their faces during a firefight), or was it at home being interviewed?

 

Obviously all soldiers worldwide will look the same after [and during] combat, or when a close friend dies. This is personal and isn't necessarily a reflection of their political attitudes towards the war.

 

That said though, the soldiers I met and served under did not see the war as particularly winnable (if the same tactics/strategy keep being used).

It's wrong to compare them to Russians in Afghanistan though, or Americans in Vietnam (romantic though it is). Both of those armies were conscript based, and did not have 21st century support, medicine and logistics. I'm no historian and might be wrong there, but i'm sure you can see the spirit of what i'm trying to say - each war is different.

Edited September 25, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster