Operation Rah-e-Nijat (South Waziristan)

[S-2]

"And S-2, you need to work harder to make me speak"

Xeric,

I'd do so if I thought you had anything useful to say.

Thanks.

 

[S-2]

New numbers out from UNAMA.

IRIN Asia | AFGHANISTAN: Over 2,400 civilian deaths in 2009 - UNAMA

The taliban for the year 2009 killed over 1600 of about 2400 total afghan deaths. Another 130 or so attributed to violence caused by neither side.

ISAF? About 595 very regrettable deaths. So in the second half of the year we killed about 295 afghans while the taliban killed over 1,000.

The taliban's killing is accelerating exponentially.

Guess you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, eh?

Thanks.

 

[Xeric]

Xeric,

I'd do so if I thought you had anything useful to say.

Thanks.

You dont want to argue with Javed, you dont consider my posts 'worthy' enough, you duck every other hard but valid blow, sir what exactly you want here to happen? Fox news may be?

 

[Patriot]

Oh he is too proud to debate with someone.All he can do is rant rant rant.In the end he will see US Defeat and he will know deep down he cannot do anything to change that.

 

[fatman17]

Pak Army should keep up pressure on Taliban: Burgess

* US Defence Intelligence Agency chief says Al Qaeda still has ability to cause pain
* No traditional winter ceasefire in Afghanistan

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: The top US defence intelligence officer said on Tuesday that it was unclear how successful Pakistan’s military operations against the Taliban had been to reduce the threat to US and NATO troops, but said the army should keep up the pressure on the militants.

Talking to Voice of America, US Defence Intelligence Agency chief Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess said he thought “we have been very successful in our operations in Afghanistan, and I think that our Pakistani partners have been fairly successful in some of their undertakings”.

He said there had been notable successes against the Taliban and Al Qaeda by US troops in Afghanistan and Pakistani troops on the other side of the border in South Waziristan and Swat.

Ability: “But what we see happening with Al Qaeda is that they still have the ability, working with the Taliban and some of the other groups in there, to cause pain and to bring about some of the more spectacular events that may occur from time to time,” he told VOA.

General Burgess said what “is unclear to me as I look at it as an intelligence professional is how many of the enemy have actually been taken off the board... or has the enemy melted away into the countryside or moved to another location?”

“While there is always something to be gained by forcing an enemy out of its sanctuary, at the end of the day I think this is an enemy that you are going to have to kill,” he said.

Ceasefire: General Burgess said there had not been much of a traditional lull in fighting in Afghanistan’s winter as in the previous years.

“The enemy always has a vote. In the past we have seen a drawdown, if you will, in terms of their activities over what we would call the winter months. We are not sure we are going to see that as much this winter,” he told the paper. “We expect to see the numbers this winter, in terms of engagements and casualties if you will, to be up over last winter. But I think you will not see the numbers that you saw, for example, during the summertime just because of the nature of the seasons over there,” he said.

The general said he took Pakistan’s top leaders “at their word”. But he added that lower-ranking officers of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) “may be helping the militants without official sanction”.

“They say that there is no official relationship that exists with those [groups],” he said. “But that is not to say that inside an intelligence organisation that at some lower level... someone does still not have an old relationship that may have spanned the last 15 or 20 years.”

 

[Dr-Sangeen]

I have been contributing to this forum for almost two months now. During this i time i have fought with the sheer arrogance of the moderators and admins of this forum.

The final straw was when they closed my welcome thread, as some of my friends were posting there.

I asked them for a reason and the reply was and i quote " i shall consider myself lucky that it was allowed for that long..."

No I don't consider myself lucky at all, they shall consider themselves lucky that people, like myself, waste their time by posting on this web page.

As far as i am concern if my welcome thread is not good enough to be here then they don't deserve to have my other contributions to this forum either.

Hence i am withdrawing all my posts from this forum.

 

[Dr-Sangeen]

I have been contributing to this forum for almost two months now. During this i time i have fought with the sheer arrogance of the moderators and admins of this forum.

The final straw was when they closed my welcome thread, as some of my friends were posting there.

I asked them for a reason and the reply was and i quote " i shall consider myself lucky that it was allowed for that long..."

No I don't consider myself lucky at all, they shall consider themselves lucky that people, like myself, waste their time by posting on this web page.

As far as i am concern if my welcome thread is not good enough to be here then they don't deserve to have my other contributions to this forum either.

Hence i am withdrawing all my posts from this forum.

 

[Dr-Sangeen]

I have been contributing to this forum for almost two months now. During this i time i have fought with the sheer arrogance of the moderators and admins of this forum.

The final straw was when they closed my welcome thread, as some of my friends were posting there.

I asked them for a reason and the reply was and i quote " i shall consider myself lucky that it was allowed for that long..."

No I don't consider myself lucky at all, they shall consider themselves lucky that people, like myself, waste their time by posting on this web page.

As far as i am concern if my welcome thread is not good enough to be here then they don't deserve to have my other contributions to this forum either.

Hence i am withdrawing all my posts from this forum.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Bad answer.

propose a good one Doc, leave stethoscope at home

 

[S-2]

"you duck every other hard but valid blow..."

I haven't seen many valid blows. Hard ones? Yes.

More factual content and less hyperbole and rhetorical nonsense would be helpful.

Thanks.

 

[Dr-Sangeen]

I have been contributing to this forum for almost two months now. During this i time i have fought with the sheer arrogance of the moderators and admins of this forum.

The final straw was when they closed my welcome thread, as some of my friends were posting there.

I asked them for a reason and the reply was and i quote " i shall consider myself lucky that it was allowed for that long..."

No I don't consider myself lucky at all, they shall consider themselves lucky that people, like myself, waste their time by posting on this web page.

As far as i am concern if my welcome thread is not good enough to be here then they don't deserve to have my other contributions to this forum either.

Hence i am withdrawing all my posts from this forum.

 

[Xeric]

"you duck every other hard but valid blow..."

I haven't seen many valid blows. Hard ones? Yes.

More factual content and less hyperbole and rhetorical nonsense would be helpful.

Thanks.

Are you a slow thinker?

Why would you take so long to address a single post of mine?

Anywaz, well, actually we dont have a meter to find out which post/facts/data would be "hyperbolic and rhetorical nonsense" for you and vice verca!

But then the fact remains that it is easier to rubbish away other point of view and impose ones own that too with the help of drones

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

The taliban for the year 2009 killed over 1600 of about 2400 total afghan deaths. Another 130 or so attributed to violence caused by neither side.

Whether those figures are true or not (I suspect they are higher), civilian casualties are a sensitive subject in Afghanistan --and such incidents bear more reaction when it is at the hands of foreign forces (perceived by most Afghans as occupiers)who are frequently accused of killing non-combatants in airstrikes

despite increasing number of foreign boots, even Kunduz is seeing instablity (forget about Kandahar).

ISAF? About 595 very regrettable deaths. So in the second half of the year we killed about 295 afghans while the taliban killed over 1,000.

this isnt a war of 'attrition'.....595 or 295 -it makes no difference really. You are perceived by many to be the occupier there.

(I'm not here to rant and rave against the U.S. That is not my roll nor is it my interest)



A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan

"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."

Professor Marc W. Herold
Ph.D., M.B.A., B.Sc.


March 2002

When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." The reason? They sympathized with the Taliban1. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."2


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

A U.S. officer aboard the US aircraft carrier, Carl Vinson, described the use of 2,000 lb cluster bombs dropped by B-52 bombers: "A 2,000 lb. bomb, no matter where you drop it, is a significant emotional event for anyone within a square mile."


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

Mantra of the U.S. mainstream corporate media : "the report cannot be independently verified"


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

"..shameful dependence on and uncritical acceptance of Pentagon handouts instead of substantial, critical coverage of the ground situation in Afghanistan. The US corporate media seems to be muting any talk of civilian casualties first by framing any such news with "Taliban claims that…." And then happily putting the matter to rest with Pentagon spokesman…" "
[Joel Lee, Hyderabad, Znet Inter Active]


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

"When people decry civilian deaths caused by the U.S. government, they're aiding propaganda efforts. In sharp contrast, when civilian deaths are caused by bombers who hate America, the perpetrators are evil and those deaths are tragedies.

When they put bombs in cars and kill people, they're uncivilized killers. When we put bombs on missiles and kill people, we're upholding civilized values. When they kill, they're terrorists. When we kill, we're striking against terror."


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

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

Abstract.

What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan. A legacy of the ten years of civil war during the 80s is that many military garrisons and facilities are located in urban areas where the Soviet-backed government had placed them since they could be better protected there from attacks by the rural mujahideen. Successor Afghan governments inherited these emplacements. To suggest that the Taliban used 'human shields' is more revealing of the historical amnesia and racism of those making such claims, than of Taliban deeds. Anti-aircraft emplacements will naturally be placed close by ministries, garrisons, communications facilities, etc.. A heavy bombing onslaught must necessarily result in substantial numbers of civilian casualties simply by virtue of proximity to 'military targets', a reality exacerbated by the admitted occasional poor targeting, human error, equipment malfunction, and the irresponsible use of out-dated Soviet maps. But, the critical element remains the very low value put upon Afghan civilian lives by U.S. military planners and the political elite, as clearly revealed by U.S. willingness to bomb heavily populated regions. Current Afghan civilian lives must and will be sacrificed in order to [possibly] protect future American lives. Actions speak, and words [can] obscure: the hollowness of pious pronouncements by Rumsfeld, Rice and the compliant corporate media about the great care taken to minimize collateral damage is clear for all to see. Other U.S. bombing targets hit are impossible to 'explain' in terms other than the U.S. seeking to inflict maximum pain upon Afghan society and perceived 'enemies': the targeted bombing of the Kajakai dam and other power stations, radio stations, the Kabul telephone exchange, the Al Jazeera Kabul office, trucks and buses filled with fleeing refugees, and the numerous attacks upon civilian trucks carrying fuel oil. Indeed, the bombing of Afghan civilian infrastructure parallels that of the Afghan civilian.

This dossier makes six major points. First, the U.S. bombing upon Afghanistan has been a low bombing intensity, high civilian casualty campaign [in both absolute terms and relative to other U.S. air campaigns]. Secondly, this has happened notwithstanding the far greater accuracy of the weapons because of U.S. military planners decisions to employ powerful weapons in populated regions and to bomb what are dubious military targets. Thirdly, the U.S. mainstream corporate media has been derelict in its non-reporting of civilian casualties when ample evidence existed from foreign places that the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan was creating such casualties in large numbers. Fourthly, the decision by U.S. military planners to execute such a bombing campaign reveals and reflects the differential values they place upon Afghan and American lives. Fifth, this report counters the dangerous notion that the United States can henceforth wage a war and only kill enemy combatants. Sixth, the U.S. bombing campaign has targeted numerous civilian facilities and the heavy use of cluster bombs, will have a lasting legacy born by one of the poorest, most desperate peoples of our world. In sum, though not intended to be, the U.S. bombing campaign which began on the evening of October 7th, has been a war upon the people, the homes, the farms and the villages of Afghanistan, as well as upon the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

rest of article/'dossier' can be found here --> Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan

 

[Dr-Sangeen]

I have been contributing to this forum for almost two months now. During this i time i have fought with the sheer arrogance of the moderators and admins of this forum.

The final straw was when they closed my welcome thread, as some of my friends were posting there.

I asked them for a reason and the reply was and i quote " i shall consider myself lucky that it was allowed for that long..."

No I don't consider myself lucky at all, they shall consider themselves lucky that people, like myself, waste their time by posting on this web page.

As far as i am concern if my welcome thread is not good enough to be here then they don't deserve to have my other contributions to this forum either.

Hence i am withdrawing all my posts from this forum.

 

[S-2]

"It only take few sentences to shut S-2 up..... could you guys not put that together...."

Yeah, facts and hard verifiable linked data will do that.

I can't wait to see some of yours.

Who, exactly, are you again?

So many fanboys come and go, Doc. I lose track with their mindless, dithering blather. You remind me of them thus far. We'll see, though, if you can improve the discourse here, smartguy.

Thanks.