The ONLY data available is from the U.N. and HRW. Does U.N. or HRW data matter?
Here's what UNAMA (United Nations Assistance Mission Afghanistan) says-
Afghanistan Mid-Year Bulletin On Protection Of Civilians In Armed Conflict- UNAMA July 2009
"UNAMA Human Right figures indicate that more civilians are being killed by AGEs [Anti-Government Elements] than by PGF [Pro-Government Forces]. In the first six months of 2009, 59% of
civilians were killed by AGEs and 30.5% by PGF. This represents a significant shift from 2007 when PGF were responsible for 41% and AGEs for 46% of civilian deaths."
I'll make my own assertion here. Not only do the Afghan taliban kill more afghan civilians than ISAF, they do so in too many cases by INTENT. Not once has anybody accused ISAF or pro-government forces with the intentional targeting of civilians. When civilians have been killed, it has been recognized with DEEP regret by all involved-
A Vow To Cut Afghan Civilian Deaths-NYT May 19, 2009
Contrast that with this report from HRW-
The Human Cost: The Consequences Of Insurgent Attacks In Afghanistan- April 2007
If fair, any will read and judge the information provided. Clearly, there is more than simply this and it includes the killing of afghan civilians by ISAF/ANA/American forces.
Those incidents are, however, adequately covered daily by the press and invariably are accompanied by our own recognition of culpability where investigated and determined. Naturally, America refuses to acknowledge immediate accusations of guilt until we've investigated matters, but we've too often found ourselves guilty of inadequate provisions to safeguard innocent to suggest that we avoid complicity where proven by our own hand.
Little of that can be said of the taliban. I hope those here will take the time to carefully read all of both reports. They are revealing about the conduct of these so-called
freedom fighters and their regard for their own kind.
I ALSO look forward to any here providing contravening data which disputes UNAMA's data on casualties. If not, then there's little ground to dispute the findings to date.
Thanks.