Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

    Afghanistan: U.S.-NATO Airstrikes Bring Higher Civilian Toll
    WASHINGTON, Sep 8 (IPS)
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/oneworld/200...e9yMq6CYn9xg8F

    Who?
    ...a major new report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) released here Monday.
    What?
    ...the cost in civilian casualties caused by the increase in bombings goes well beyond the loss of human life and could put the nearly seven-year U.S.-NATO war effort at risk.
    Why?
    "Civilian deaths from airstrikes act as a recruiting tool for the Taliban and risk fatally undermining the international effort to provide basic security to the people of Afghanistan," said Brad Adams, HRW's Asia director.
    How?
    The report suggested that blame for civilian deaths can be focused fairly narrowly. While most foreign troops in Afghanistan operate under the banner of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a disproportionate number of civilian casualties resulted from air strikes called in by the nearly 20,000 U.S. troops who operate exclusively under U.S. command as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Their rules of engagement, including when they can call for air support, are less strict than NATO's.

    The most problematic engagements have come when insurgents take U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) by surprise, and the SOF call in air support. The military term, "troops in contact" (TIC), gave the HRW report its name.

    In TIC situations, U.S. forces have often engaged insurgents who then retreat to nearby villages, taking up positions in homes and preventing their civilian residents from leaving.

    Faced with a standoff, U.S. troops have called in rapid-response air support to bomb the homes from which they were taking hostile fire. That appears to have been what took place in Azizabad.
    And by the way:
    Both the Pentagon and leading Democrats have been arguing for months for deploying at least 10,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan but have been unable to overcome resistance by military commanders in Iraq who, backed by President George W. Bush, are reluctant to draw down troop levels there below the current 144,000. U.S. ground forces are so stretched globally that deploying additional forces to Afghanistan must await further withdrawals from Iraq.

  • #2
    Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

    And what exactly do you want to show us with this? We all know that war is a horrible thing and has it casualties on both sides as well as the civilian population, but the people who think that the war in Afghanistan is justified (me included) will still support it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

      This is a result of Collateral Damage. In every conflict, there is a degree of death and destruction that we have to accept. It sounds cold, but a war with a goal of ZERO collateral damage is impossible. Especially when the enemy runs inside of civilian homes. And for the record, since the Taliban aren't uniformed men or represent a recognized government, they're technically civilians too. They're what's called unlawful combatants. Once they enter into that realm of technicality, all bets are off. It's really amazing that we're as nice to them as we are. We really don't have to be, from a technical and legal standpoint.

      This issue being brought up is just a bunch of bleeding-heart hippie propaganda. Then again, I am the War.mongeR. ;)

      But seriously, I can understand people being upset about the war in Iraq, but the war in Afghanistan is pretty much indisputably justifiable. Even most liberals I know feel that way.
      "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

        The increased level of bombing has come as a result of a stepped-up insurgency led by anti-government Taliban fighters and associated groups. Fighting in Afghanistan has intensified dramatically over the past year. At least 540 civilians have been killed in the conflict so far this year, a sharp increase over last year's total. Casualties among the more than 60,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan have also risen sharply this year.

        U.S. and NATO forces, according to the report, dropped 362 tons of munitions in Afghanistan during the first seven months of this year, including a flurry of bombings in June and July that, by itself, nearly equaled the total amount of bombs, by weight, dropped by the coalition forces on suspected enemy positions in all of 2006.

        "While attacks by the Taliban and other insurgent groups continue to account for the majority of civilian casualties," said the report, "civilian deaths from U.S. and NATO airstrikes nearly tripled from 2006 to 2007 (from 116 to 321)."
        Just to put a number on this "humans rights violation"
        Skud


        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

          /thread

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

            Originally posted by Nathrael View Post
            And what exactly do you want to show us with this?
            Information about world events.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

              That's a sneaky answer. We teach our daughter that sneaking is the same as lying.

              So don't insult everyone's intelligence. Of course you didn't post information about world events, you posted selected points from an article that moved you in some way. How about an honest answer to the question?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

                Suppose this was done in an American suburb. If terrorists retreat into our homes, should the police be able to bomb them there? Apparently we've already accepted that it's ok to shoot down terrorist-controlled airliners full of civilians, so I guess nailing a few mini-mansions in Beverly Hills isn't that big a deal.
                Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?

                snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."

                Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

                  Originally posted by War.mongeR1 View Post
                  It's really amazing that we're as nice to them as we are. We really don't have to be, from a technical and legal standpoint.
                  We're nice to the civilians we bombed?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

                    Originally posted by BleedingKnee View Post
                    We're nice to the civilians we bombed?
                    I meant the Taliban and unlawful combatants. Sorry for any confusion. Probably should have been a bit more specific.
                    "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

                      Originally posted by ScratchMonkey View Post
                      Suppose this was done in an American suburb. If terrorists retreat into our homes, should the police be able to bomb them there? Apparently we've already accepted that it's ok to shoot down terrorist-controlled airliners full of civilians, so I guess nailing a few mini-mansions in Beverly Hills isn't that big a deal.
                      Bad example, the FBI would take jurisdiction over the situation you described, and last time I checked the FBI doesnt have air support allocated to their operations other then air transport. The FBI also prefers to arrest criminals, where the army for the most part has totally different training.

                      Anyone remember the MOVE thing back in phila in the 80's? they didnt have a problem bombing the "terrorists" back then either.

                      The be-all-to-end-all for this is declaired or not, this is a war, and in war, there is collateral damage and civilian deaths unfortunately. The only thing open to criticism here IMO is whether or not we should be using air support in situations like this. I know not everyone will agree on this, but as an American, one of our soldier's lives is more important then an entire village's worth of non-combatants. Especially in a situation where you can't tell the bad guys from the good guys until one of your men gets shot. It's up to the guy who called in the air strike to live with the results afterwards, and trust me, it's not easy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

                        Originally posted by TheSkudDestroyer View Post
                        Just to put a number on this "humans rights violation"
                        What's a few hundred dead non-American civilians between friends?
                        In game handle: Steel Scion
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

                          The reason I posted this is because it exemplifies the mismanagement of the War on Terror by the Bush administration.

                          This is the main point:

                          Both the Pentagon and leading Democrats have been arguing for months for deploying at least 10,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan but have been unable to overcome resistance by military commanders in Iraq who, backed by President George W. Bush, are reluctant to draw down troop levels there below the current 144,000. U.S. ground forces are so stretched globally that deploying additional forces to Afghanistan must await further withdrawals from Iraq.
                          This has occurred while the GOP was touting the great success of the Surge for the TV cameras.

                          If we had the troop strength, and were following the UN rules of engagement, this situation wouldn't be so terrible for everyone involved.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

                            Pentagon admits Afghan strategy not succeeding
                            http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080910/...sa_pakistan_dc

                            He also warned that time was running out on the ability of the West to provide Afghanistan with vital nonmilitary assistance for Afghanistan including roads, schools, alternative crops for farmers and the rule of law.

                            "These are the keys to success in Afghanistan. We cannot kill our way to victory and no armed force anywhere, no matter how good, can deliver these keys alone," Mullen said.
                            If I didn't know better, I would suspect that the US is struggling on the War on Terror on purpose.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Human Rights Watch: Afghanistan

                              once again hippy liberals have to open their mouths......how many human rights activists are in afghanistan? Honestly, how many i would really like to know, and how many do ride alongs with military platoons or patrols, or do they take everything al jazeera says as truth?

                              is a suicide bomber a civilian casualty? because if he didn't have a bomb strapped on his body he would be a civilian?
                              Randy = Ace ! - Warlab
                              Level II Volunteer FireFighter
                              Level I HazMat Technician
                              NYS EMT-B
                              Town of Mamaroneck Fire Dept.

                              sigpic




                              Bring On Project Reality 1.0!!!
                              RSS Feeds:Bamboo | | 9/11 - Never Forget |
                              Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
                              Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
                              We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X