Airstrike in Afghanistan

[Wilde]

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

 

I don't think anyone really argues this way. It's more like they were well aware that it was a NATO truck stolen by the Taliban. They knew it was a bad idea to go loot off it. And if they did they were not as innocent as some people claim.

 

However, bombing them as it was done was not exactly subtle. I think in hindsight they'd do it differently too.

[CE_Mikemonster]

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

 

 

That's exactly what you're arguing. You're saying that they

'knew it was a bad idea to go loot off it'

and therefore put themselves in danger willfully.

 

You didn't answer my point about them not having a choice. If you needed the fuel to sell in your village in order to take your dying son to hospital would you? I damn well would. That doesn't justify using a bomb to kill me. The deterrent obviously doesn't work because people still went.

 

How many Afghans do you think get by without ever buying off the black market? I'd say 1% or less. And they are ruling the rest.

 

Therefore using your reasoning, we should shoot the 99%. It would deter any of the 1% from becoming looters when times got tough.

 

It's a very simple statement that hides the complexity of the situation. Why do people loot? because they are bad, yes, but also because they need to. The world is not made of good and bad, unfortunately.

 

I fail to see how bombing looters without warning constitutes a viable Law and Order strategy in a third world country. in Black Hawk Down (at the start) the Somalians machine gunned civilians who were rushing to get Food Aid from a truck. What is the difference here? (fundamentally?)

The Somalians were 'keeping the status quo' in order that nobody challenged their authority.

 

The strategy of incredibly tough punishments was used under the Taliban (and worked AFAIK). Therefore we should use it?

Edited September 26, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[vanir]

When you kill civilians you don't get to play victim when they kill yours. That's what this cost the US.

 

America really needs the support of the international community to run with this war on terror thing. If I was American this would concern me deeply. Remember the one and only difference between the good guys and the bad guys is a change of perspective.

 

Coz damn sure your actions are no different.

[Maximus_G]

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...

 

There again, you're saying "wrong to compare" and trying to compare at the same time.

The point is different: some people there see no good in how and where this war is going, 7 years of a very professional action, still nowhere near end. Doesn't matter if they are old military dogs or yesterday's schoolboys making their way to a college, or anything else.

[Wilde]

You didn't answer my point about them not having a choice.

 

Well, because that's not a point. You always have a choice.

 

It looks like you are trying to avoid what was said really. Nobody is blaming them in way like "it was there own fault". Just that they weren't angels when stealing despite being told not to by their eld, wiser family members. Please don't spin that into something I didn't say.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Well, because that's not a point. You always have a choice.

 

It looks like you are trying to avoid what was said really. Nobody is blaming them in way like "it was there own fault". Just that they weren't angels when stealing despite being told not to by their eld, wiser family members. Please don't spin that into something I didn't say.

 

But there is your contradiction. You say they had a choice, and made the choice (broke the law), and therefore deserved to die (if you believe the bombing was justified then you agree they deserved to die).

 

Also did you consider that the elders lied to the press in order to retain their dignity and status amongst other elders in the region?

 

Hypothetically, if your son had burns all over his body, and was in agony, would you have gone to the trucks to buy fuel to sell for a profit in order to get him to a hospital?

 

And do you believe it was justified to kill these people? (That was the impression I got).

 

 

I'm not trying to personally insult you, and i'm glad you're explaining (and therefore justifying) your perspective. I just have a problem with the very unsympathetic (and apparently very right wing) attitude shown here in terms of law and order - we are talking about the Ultimate punishment.

Edited September 29, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[CE_Mikemonster]

There again, you're saying "wrong to compare" and trying to compare at the same time.

The point is different: some people there see no good in how and where this war is going, 7 years of a very professional action, still nowhere near end. Doesn't matter if they are old military dogs or yesterday's schoolboys making their way to a college, or anything else.

 

I'm saying it is wrong to compare, and using my examples as demonstrations of how comparing is inaccurate (and misleading).

 

I presume that you were originally comparing to the Russians, back in the '80s?

 

Please justify this by explaining the similarities. There are people from my country who I personally met that are dying out there as we speak, and I find it slightly naiive to compare them to a defeated army in a completely different situation (I have already mentioned I am no historian, you see what i'm getting at though).

 

As mentioned I have personally met veterans (when I was in basic training with the Infantry), and see that as a better source of information than that presented selectively in news reports on the TV.

 

With regards to 'some people there see no good in how and where this war is going' please re-read my previous post:

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)..

 

Edit: btw, For what it's worth I see your point. Why has it taken nearly a decade to get apparently nowhere? Not a topic for this thread though really.

Edited September 29, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[Maximus_G]

I presume that you were originally comparing to the Russians, back in the '80s?

That's right, mr. Einstein :music_whistling:

 

Please justify this by explaining the similarities. There are people from my country who I personally met that are dying out there as we speak, and I find it slightly naiive to compare them to a defeated army in a completely different situation.

"a defeated army in a completely different situation" - that's a judgement based on comparison. Let's not step on the same rake again.

 

With regards to 'some people there see no good in how and where this war is going' please re-read my previous post.

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)..

And that is all what my post was about too.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Maximus_G

[CE_Mikemonster]

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.

 

Ok, they 'strongly reminded' you. You're making a comparison and insinuating that the American soldiers feel the same towards the war as the Russian soldiers did in the 1980's.

 

Based on what? Have you talked to the American soldiers?

 

Like I already said, that's a romantic thought, but where are the similarities?

Edited September 29, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[Wilde]

if you believe the bombing was justified then you agree they deserved to die

 

Which I don't. I stated in my first and second posts in this thread, that I don't endorse bombing them. It's just wrong on every level, morally, strategically, financially or whatever.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Oh, yeah, just noticed. I did read from page one but didn't notice.

 

I still don't understand what you are trying to convey in your last couple of posts. At best you've just re-iterated what I said in my first post, but not as clearly.

I'd already said it's not a case of good and bad, but instead shades of grey in terms of the civilians involved. So had a few others.

 

Jpm, CrazySunDog and RedTiger have all been absolute about their belief that Coalition Forces are blameless. People are arguing that the civilians deserved to die.

 

If people want to say that the Taliban forced the Coalition to bomb civilians by taking the trucks into a village, then they're still saying civilians deserved to get bombed. If Coalition doctrine is to destroy any peice of lost equipment regardless of what the civilian deathtoll is, then they sure as hell aren't representing taxpayer's and voter's [uneducated] attitudes.

 

If a terrorist ran into a housing block in Manchester and we cordened it off and burned it to the ground, killing everyone inside, would that be justified? It's the same damn principle, and only slightly more extreme. Where do you draw the line?

[crazysundog]

The last time I checked, Manchester was not in a war zone; Not the same thing at all...

 

I said: "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."

 

Nowhere do I state or argue that 'civilians deserved to die.' Neither do I state that Coalition Forces are blameless...(I don't believe in using the word 'blame', but much prefer terms like responsibility and accountability.) I hold the (so-called) men of the Taliban responsible for this incident. To ask the obvious question; could the coalition forces have used a better method to have disabled the Taliban? I don't know, I am not a commander...but I know a firefight would have yielded the same results because the Tali's had RPG's.

 

I'm a little suprised that many debating this incident know so little facts about what happened there...For the record; The Tali's drove the trucks accross a shallow river crossing and got them stuck. They went to the village for 'help', and used the threat of death to get it. They also promised free fuel for those willing to come and push the trucks/lighten the load of the trucks. This happened at 2:00am local time.

 

Another fact: Innocent loss of life is taken very seriously by the Coalition Forces and the UN, and great effort is made to minimize civilian casualties.

 

Its a shame the Taliban doesn't share these values; and a bigger shame that some believe the Tali's are a modern day Robin Hood, sharing fuel and RPG's with all the poor children suffering under occupation...

[Maximus_G]

Ok, they 'strongly reminded' you. You're making a comparison and insinuating that the American soldiers feel the same towards the war as the Russian soldiers did in the 1980's.

 

Based on what? Have you talked to the American soldiers?

 

Like I already said, that's a romantic thought, but where are the similarities?

 

I'm sorry, got tired repeating it for ya.

[davek1979]

... There are regions with no constant coalition military presence...

That's probably why Afghanistan exports like 90 % of all opium in the world, despite the presence of multi-billion dollar technologies, Reapers in the sky and constant military action. And despite the so-called US war on drugs...

And there's only one reason for all that - someone likes it this way.

[CE_Mikemonster]

The last time I checked, Manchester was not in a war zone; Not the same thing at all...

I was using it as an example of how indiscriminate deterrents/punishments wouldn't be effective in preventing people commiting the crime of working for the Taliban.

 

It's still a crime and punishment issue despite Afghanistan being a warzone. The same logic still applies from prosecuting drug dealers in the UK to prosecuting people looting two trucks in Afghanistan.

(To those who believe this event has deterred other people from cooperating with the Taliban, see what happened when similar tactics were used in Vietnam).

 

I said: "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."

 

Nowhere do I state or argue that 'civilians deserved to die.' Neither do I state that Coalition Forces are blameless...(I don't believe in using the word 'blame', but much prefer terms like responsibility and accountability.) I hold the (so-called) men of the Taliban responsible for this incident.

 

So you say the Taliban are 'entirely' responsible for the civilian deaths.

 

But you don't believe the Coalition are blameless?

 

That's a contradiction straight away.

 

If you justify the bombing, then killing civilians in this number and circumstance is also justified. Therefore you believe they deserved to die.

 

If they didn't deserve to die, the bombing would be unjust, logically.

 

To ask the obvious question; could the coalition forces have used a better method to have disabled the Taliban? I don't know, I am not a commander...but I know a firefight would have yielded the same results because the Tali's had RPG's.

 

Can you think of any worse way to handle this situation? If anybody wants to say it would be dangerous to send in troops then fair enough, but the bottom line is that civilians were bombed here, apparently en masse..

 

What do you mean 'a firefight would have yeilded the same results'?

 

I'm a little suprised that many debating this incident know so little facts about what happened there...For the record; The Tali's drove the trucks accross a shallow river crossing and got them stuck. They went to the village for 'help', and used the threat of death to get it. They also promised free fuel for those willing to come and push the trucks/lighten the load of the trucks. This happened at 2:00am local time.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't think the civilians would have had much of a choice. Unfortunately typical of these sorts of conflict isn't it. It's always the unarmed that pay the price when a situation develops.

 

Another fact: Innocent loss of life is taken very seriously by the Coalition Forces and the UN, and great effort is made to minimize civilian casualties.

 

Surely the Coalition were forced to bomb civilians only by their own doctrine? Nobody was holding a gun to their heads.

 

Its a shame the Taliban doesn't share these values; and a bigger shame that some believe the Tali's are a modern day Robin Hood, sharing fuel and RPG's with all the poor children suffering under occupation...

 

It is a shame they don't value human life, and I have no doubt that they are vicious murderers.

Whether the civilians trapped in the 'battlefield' mentioned are though is debatable. Very debatable.

 

We took responsibility for the security of the Afghan people when we took over 'admin' of the provinces following the invasion. If we can't stop the Taliban putting a gun to their head then who are we to bomb them for complying?

[crazysundog]

CE Mikemonster, you have misquoted me again...and worse, you are making long-drawn conclusions and telling me what I believe. I don't know if it's crack or pot in your pipe, but I suggest you put the pipe down, it must be hot by now.

 

EDIT: didn't have time to finish my post, so I thought I'd come back and add an afterthought.

 

I probably shouldn't have made the pipe comment, so I'm sorry if any offense was taken...but I do not appreciate having words put into my mouth and overreacted...with potty mouth.

 

Anyway, this is an age-old arguement about war and suffering, (when is war too much/too far?) I dont feel like debating it...and I should have known any small opinion would have been grossly twisted.

Edited October 1, 2009 by crazysundog

[CE_Mikemonster]

Well If I misquoted you then I apologise, seeing as I quoted you word for word. I was merely pointing out your contradictions, which quite obviously don't exist..

 

If i'm twisting your opinion then my apologies.. I was merely going by what you had written (obviously not what you were thinking, my bad!). I'm sure Afghanistan is a simple war, and we can all make statements that reflect that! For instance The Taliban Are Responsible For Me Missing The Bus This Morning :smartass:

 

Don't twist my words there by saying there's more to it. :helpsmilie:

 

Again, my apologies. I simply had no idea that you felt I was challenging your assumptions. Civilian deaths are a trivial and uninteresting subject anyway, we should all say what we like on the subject. Brief and simple seems best.. With no arkward questions allowed..

 

Mike:pilotfly:

Edited October 1, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster

[Martillo1]

Well, in case of suspecting that an airstrike from your CAS could cause civilian victims, the best you can do to avoid a carnage is to send the CAS back to base and deal with the enemy with ground forces.

 

That is what happened the 4th of September when talibans attacked Spanish ground forces at the Sabzak Pass. The Spanish commander sent the two Italian Mangustas back after the talibans went hiding to the village of Marghozar and considering the danger to the civilians (prior to that the helos gave good support), and fought the talibans on the ground.

 

We won 13-0.