Western airstrikes and civilian casualties due to them in Afghanistan-Statistics

[Xeric]

"It was never my intention to suggest that the Americans have fought the Afghan war without consideration for the civilian population."

Many, many here do. Xeric has an editorial up by Shabbir Uddin Ahmed accusing western forces of gang-raping afghan women.

Pretty sick stuff. Either he didn't read his editorial or he's fine with that assertion. Why would he, a serving officer, be so unobjective? Hatred?

Glad that you read the article.

Two, what do you want to suggest here? Is there a rule on this forum that a specific kind of news cannot be quoted here? BTW, it was not any article from a biased Pakistani source, it was written in Bangladesh which has nothing to do with the ongoing shyt!

BTW, what about the unobjective and hate filled BS you and other yanks spew on the forum against the Pakistanis and Islam? You are also ex-military!

Or may be you want to suggest that anything that gets printed/published by the Western media is reliable, objective, true, fair, balanced, loving, caring, suitable for all ages and factual and whatever the others publish is otherwise??!!

You have the cheeks to counter a report published by an unbiased news source and still consider yourself sane? BTW, i still have to find anything posted by you where you have refuted the claims in the news quoted by me on this thread other than comparing it with the innocent kills made by the terrorists (who says that the terrorists are angles, they are b*stards and should be eliminated from the face of this planet ASAP!) How naive!!

Why the heck cant you digest the truth! Is it so hard? Instead of acknowledging the fact and saying that, yes mistakes have been made by the americans, you blindly and unobjectively support the atrocities!! Why cant you just say that collateral damage do happen in such kind of operations and we are trying to make it minimum and we (the US) dont want that innocents should be killed, but you are here for another agenda which is now obviously clear to all and you have the guts and cheeks to stick with it even when every other member on this forum is kicking you in your groins!

Even the indians are not with you on this!! How many indians have you seen commenting on this thread, may be they have ignored the thread or may be they are deliberately quite (meaning thereby that they acknowledged the facts mentioned in the news).

Do you still need to grow more?? How many grand children do you have exactly?? Is this what you teach them? Hatred and poison against the poor and innocents and malign a religion and a country!!


i am again telling you to behave as per your age and demeanor! Let's not play barbie BS!

I don't agree. First, I don't know the involvement, one way or the other, of your intelligence services with THIS strike. Could be total, peripheral, or uninvolved. Second, I haven't seen any particular emphasis by western media sources about our killing B.M. at the exclusion of Pakistani participation.

I gather most in the west generally presume your involvement as we have for much of the last twelve months. Again, nobody KNOWS, though. Everything here is speculative.

See, you can talk sense if you want to!

Do you wish to claim that B.M. couldn't have been killed without your help? Fine. Do so. I don't believe we care one way or the other.

No sir we dont want to have the share, keep it to yourself and place that Predator on the top on the Capitol in DC!!

 

[Xeric]

The issue of rape in the military is long. My ex-girlfriend's sister was raped on a train in W. Germany in the 70s.

The Pakistani army has it's own history and accusations to include Bangladesh and, more recently, in Baluchistan and with the U.N. overseas-

U.N Sexual Abuse Alleged In Congo- WAPO

The incidents of charges of civilian rape in Iraq are miniscule if you seriously examine the numbers. More so if involving our own women soldiers and that is a command concern of some significant level and visibility.

Should you address these allegations by Xeric's opinion writer in light of anything but the facts? Those soldiers would deserve such, as would any civilians involved.

Truth is, though, no allegation exists in Afghanistan. Just hasn't happened. Just a non-specific editorial smear without context. Acceptable, evidently, to a serving officer of the P.A. to snidely suggest such though?

I'd personally be careful of tossing bricks when living in glass houses but that's just me.

First, your reply is a pure instance of whining.

Second, why would it bother you when an independent source claim something? Many other independent sources claim many and many things against many others including ourselves! What's so difficult about it? May be you are in a habit of viewing the picture from your own eye piece and it hurts your eyes when someone (like me) makes you see the same situation from another eye piece?

As for the PA's rape record, sir:

1) Try to bring out any case that our military has been accused of in all of the UN Missions our military have undertaken, despite the fact that we have been the largest men provider to the UN!

2) Prove that the PA has raped someone in Balochistan, i'll not buy crap from a newspaper who is guud at providing allegations! The two cases that i know of (though one was regarding the Para-mil forces), none have been PROVED till now! BTW, what if i say today that you are a rapist or a racist or a terrorist sympathizer or a child molester (which you are not)? Yes it would hit the media hard and would be an excellent bed time story for readers like you, but in the end all would vanish as fumes when nothing would be proved!

3) As for Bangladesh, yes bad things were done by bad people, no one has ever denied that, atleast inside Pakistan. So keep the rhetorics with you and dont waste time and distract other from the topic at hand, BTW, why dont you discuss this US-Rape thingy in that thread?

 

[Vassnti]

Guud and valid point, i tried to dig it up but couldnt find an answer to it. Did you find any?

On the other hand does it matter whether these people were killed by deliberate drones/AF attacks or 'indirect' ones.

First let me say i am in no way trying to minimise the tragedy of civilian deaths during a military opperation.

No i didnt find that data, the reason for the query is that presumably most of the casualties occurred when an air strike was called in support of ground troops, as opposed to the situation in Pakistan where most would be drone strikes.
So we have a situation where the casualties could have been caused by fire from either side before the strike or during the strike.

All we can derive from the raw data is that in locations where american air strikes occcurred 317 civilian casualties were reported.

Seeing there is compensation of between $2500 and $5000 US for civilian casualties i can imagine there would be some temptation to claim some killed in small arms cross fire that may have been killed by aliance forces or taliban as being killed by an air strike.

If you exclude the obvious stuff ups where for reasons still being investigated heavy air support was called in the presence of large numbers of civilians, two i am thinking of where 110 and 90 civilians are reported killed, then in a situation where the taliban deliberately mingle with civilians the numbers are lower than i would have expected.

The americans arent perfect and yes one civilian death is too many but an objective review would seem to show that in most cases the US is being very selective about the use of airstrikes probably to the detriment of their own troops.

 

[Xeric]

First let me say i am in no way trying to minimise the tragedy of civilian deaths during a military opperation.

No i didnt find that data, the reason for the query is that presumably most of the casualties occurred when an air strike was called in support of ground troops, as opposed to the situation in Pakistan where most would be drone strikes.
So we have a situation where the casualties could have been caused by fire from either side before the strike or during the strike.

All we can derive from the raw data is that in locations where american air strikes occcurred 317 civilian casualties were reported.

Seeing there is compensation of between $2500 and $5000 US for civilian casualties i can imagine there would be some temptation to claim some killed in small arms cross fire that may have been killed by aliance forces or taliban as being killed by an air strike.

If you exclude the obvious stuff ups where for reasons still being investigated heavy air support was called in the presence of large numbers of civilians, two i am thinking of where 110 and 90 civilians are reported killed, then in a situation where the taliban deliberately mingle with civilians the numbers are lower than i would have expected.

The americans arent perfect and yes one civilian death is too many but an objective review would seem to show that in most cases the US is being very selective about the use of airstrikes probably to the detriment of their own troops.

Again i have to agree with you on this.

You are right, people do claim 'more' especially when money is involved, and keeping in view the poverty level this possibility cannot be ruled out, but still how much exactly can such false claims exaggerate the numbers mentioned in the report? That's a question which might require deliberation and i am not getting into it.

Moreover, there is no denying that fact that the coalition forces are trying their best to avoid damage to the innocents as there is no point killing them. The question is do they succeed in this?

On one side they provide the Afghan food and facilities and on the other if they would kill them it'll just make their reconstruction efforts futile, so ofcourse they dont do it (the kill the innocents deliberately).

As for the distinction between deliberate/planned drone attacks/air strikes and casualties occurring due to 'massive' air support during active operation, i dont differentiate them. How can we? Even if an innocent is killed due to a blast in an ammo dump caused by, let's say an innocent civilian they military has to take the blame, that's what fate, we the men with arms are in thick soup always. A civilian kills your dog he is considered a moron and if a soldier do the same the entire military is named bad and the soldiers are accused of being inhumane, heartless, cold-blooded, callous and soulless creatures. That's a fact and we have to live with it. Poor soldiers!

i dont know why people think that after wearing a uniform a human turns into a creature!

But still this doesn't excuse soldiers from the crime of killing innocents! Every innocent killed in a fight has a debt unpaid, and unless there is a very guud reason behind it is to be considered as a murderous act!

Let's hope that the ratio of innocent killings in Afghanistan comes down the next year!

 

[TruthSeeker]

What's wrong with you man?

The Pakistani intelligence has been 'cooperaing' with the US, that's no secret, but could you provide a link that asserts involvement of Pakistani inteilligence in the Mehsub strike? I have not seen such an assertion in the Pakistani press. Is it just some blogger saying that or a reporter/editor in bonafide Pakistani newspaper? Or just your inference or interpretation?

And, after all, heretofore, the PA/ISI has never accepted any co-operation with the drone strikes. Maybe some unsophisticated reporters in the eastern press actually believed them?

(i have just added the underlined words in your reply and copied the rest)

Xeric, here's the thread starter on a thread that you have posted on. So what's wrong with YOU, man?

Pakistanis admit helping Mehsud missile strike

Sunday, August 09, 2009, Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: Local intelligence officials acknowledged on Saturday that a CIA missile strike that allegedly killed Baitullah Mehsud was carried out with Islamabad's help, indicating growing coordination between the two countries against the Taliban, despite Pakistan's official disapproval of the strikes.

Two Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the CIA launched the missiles after Pakistan passed along a confirmed report that Baitullah was staying at his father-in-law's home.

A video of the attack was also shared with Pakistani authorities. In it, Mehsud was clearly visible, said one of the officials. The official declined to give more specifics, such as exactly where Mehsud was, but said his body was destroyed.

Pakistan has routinely condemned the American missile strikes, saying they violate its sovereignty and anger the local population, especially when civilians are killed. Analysts suspect the public stance is simply a face-saving measure for the government, and that it is secretly cooperating in the attacks. In any case, the strike that killed Mehsud appears to be a huge boon for Pakistan, and it might nudge the country to go after Taliban leaders the US sees as a greater threat to its interests in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/31348-pakistanis-admit-helping-mehsud-missile-strike.html

 

[Conscientious objector]

here is a nice video of insurgents trying to set a roadside bomb but getting caught.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

I've got a nice video for you as well

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"No Afghan Taliban army marched into Pakistan to obtain sanctuary."

I disagree. An afghan taliban government and it's military leadership crossed into Pakistan. Why wouldn't you have interest in them?

Again, no Afghan Taliban army marched into Pakistan, though isolated bands of Afghan and Pakistani Taliban no doubt made it across the porous border due to a lack of proper coordination and planning from the US side with Pakistan, and the terrain in general. Pakistan deployed almost a 100,000 regular and paramilitary troops on that border initially, how many did the US deploy?

As for interest in whatever leadership may have made it across the border - why should we have interest in them? They did not attack Pakistan, they did not attack the US, they did not have any knowledge of AQ's plan to carry out 911, nor did they knowingly assist them in that. They were the ones under attack from the US, and these leaders had been loyal allies in Afghanistan till that point.

I realize that the US has a rather perverted view about loyalties to allies, choosing to rip allies off both money paid for military equipment and the equipment itself, cutting off military supplies in time of war and sanctioning them, but I would hope Pakistan would show a bit more respect to past loyalties so long as those allies did not seek to harm Pakistan.

Afghan wounded and combatants did too. Many returned home. For some, home was the refugee camps surrounding Quetta.

For some home was the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan, for Pakistani citizens assisting the Taliban home was Pakistan proper, but it woudl be extremely far fetched to suggest that the Taliban regime was comprised primarily of 'immigrants'.

The majority of the Taliban called Afghanistan home, and injured and combatants both likely melted into the Afghan countryside - it would by far be the easiest thing to do - and from there have become part of the resurgent insurgency.

A.M. you have an immense desire to diminish the importance of sanctuary. The taliban knew where they could be supported and reconstituted. Only three countries recognized them. Only one shared a border. You.

Actually, they had no choice. Reconstitution and resupply wasn't going to happen in Afghanistan so it was FATA or bust.

By that yardstick the only place the resurgent Baluch insurgency could 'reconstitute and resupply' would be Afghanistan. Only three countries have shown sympathy and support for the Baluch insurgents - the Afghans historically have supported the Baluch insurgents every single time, and the Indians the more recent BLA, while the Americans are allegedly involved with Jundullah in Iran. For the Baluch insurgents, reconstitution and resupply could only happen in Afghanistan.

Yeah, many footsoldiers returned home within Afghanistan. Not all and certainly not the most important. Nothing has changed since late 2001 either.

We are in agreement on your first point here then. The most important may not have, but they are not the ones conducting the actual insurgency - that is still in the hands of the local commanders. You have claimed that the leadership is responsible for organizing funding - but I have read no reports of them taking flights out to the Gulf and hosting fund raisers, or even doing so publicly in Pakistan.

For the Taliban, it is the movement and cause (fighting off American occupation and establishing a 'Utopian Shariah state') itself that allows for funds to be raised, not the existence of Mullah Omar.

The support remains and the Quetta shura is very much on the minds of Gates, Holbrooke, and Mullen.

When they quit caring so shall I.

You don't really know. They do.

I trust them. I don't trust you.

And I trust my military leadership, not you, and certainly not your military or political leadership, given the perfidious history that the US has.

"a better one IMO is 'Where would we be had the US not been gung ho about waging war against a sovereign nation and continued negotiations with the Taliban regime along with the international community'..."

Rhetorical. It can't be changed. Sanctuaries that exist today can and should be eliminated.

Your question is not better. It begs the obvious.

Oh but the question is much more than rhetorical, it is crucial IMO to finding a lasting solution to Afghanistan - engagement with the Taliban and their incorporation into the political process. At the end of the day, the reality is that NATO is the occupier, and the Taliban are the local insurgents fighting occupation.

'Sanctuaries', in terms of the GoP establishing its writ across all of FATA, will occur as the GoP and military obtain the resources and support domestically, and especially in FATA, to utilize both political and military means to achieve that end goal of integration of FATA into mainstream Pakistan in all aspects.

That end goal however will take time since, among a host of other factors, the politicians have to play their own games (democracy you know), and Pakistan cannot afford to exacerbate ethnic tensions in the Pakhtun belt and turn an Islamist insurgency into a Pashtun+Islamist insurgency.

But we are way off topic here.

 

[Xeric]

Xeric, here's the thread starter on a thread that you have posted on. So what's wrong with YOU, man?

Pakistanis admit helping Mehsud missile strike

Sunday, August 09, 2009, Daily Times

ISLAMABAD: Local intelligence officials acknowledged on Saturday that a CIA missile strike that allegedly killed Baitullah Mehsud was carried out with Islamabad's help, indicating growing coordination between the two countries against the Taliban, despite Pakistan's official disapproval of the strikes.

Two Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the CIA launched the missiles after Pakistan passed along a confirmed report that Baitullah was staying at his father-in-law's home.

A video of the attack was also shared with Pakistani authorities. In it, Mehsud was clearly visible, said one of the officials. The official declined to give more specifics, such as exactly where Mehsud was, but said his body was destroyed.

Pakistan has routinely condemned the American missile strikes, saying they violate its sovereignty and anger the local population, especially when civilians are killed. Analysts suspect the public stance is simply a face-saving measure for the government, and that it is secretly cooperating in the attacks. In any case, the strike that killed Mehsud appears to be a huge boon for Pakistan, and it might nudge the country to go after Taliban leaders the US sees as a greater threat to its interests in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/31348-pakistanis-admit-helping-mehsud-missile-strike.html

Oh i have read that through and thorough and i know what you are saying, but you are not getting what i was saying, or may be you dont want to understand. Guud for you!

 

[Thomas]

Yes, at the top levels of political and military organizations, I don't doubt it for a second. On the ground, the reality might be different. Soldiers are trained to kill, not be humanitarians.

There are numerous examples from Iraq of the average American soldier being humanitarian. It is foremost in their minds. They have arranged for medical surgeries that could not be performed in Iraq, supplies for Iraqi schools, Clothes for Iraqi children. Soldiers in Afghanistan do these things as well. Those that care to do these things in the first place. you will not find committing atrocities.

Now that is no to say every now and then there are not those that are selfish and could care less. Every army of the world has bad apples so to speak. But the average soldier is not in that category.

 

[Thomas]

I've got a nice video for you as well


vlM4zU-zk9k[/media] - US Soldier Attacked and Cried

it's isn't uncommon actually for wounded soldiers to cry. The mixture of adrenalin, and pain from their wounds. What I noticed most is the professionalism of his comrades.

I notice to Conscientious objector you live in Great Britain and you are a Taliban supporter?

 

[Conscientious objector]

I notice to Conscientious objector you live in Great Britain and you are a Taliban supporter?

I support the right of all people in all places to live free of foreign occupation.

 

[Conscientious objector]

There are numerous examples from Iraq of the average American soldier being humanitarian. It is foremost in their minds. They have arranged for medical surgeries that could not be performed in Iraq, supplies for Iraqi schools, Clothes for Iraqi children. Soldiers in Afghanistan do these things as well. Those that care to do these things in the first place. you will not find committing atrocities.

Now that is no to say every now and then there are not those that are selfish and could care less. Every army of the world has bad apples so to speak. But the average soldier is not in that category.

Maybe you haven't heard of Bush's private army Blackwater but they have been responsible for countless crimes against humanity.As for the regular army, well then the whole occupation is one illegal immoral crime against humanity.Do you have any idea of the effects of depleted uranium? Do you have any idea of how much of this stuff has been dumped on Iraq?

 

[Thomas]

Maybe you haven't heard of Bush's private army Blackwater but they have been responsible for countless crimes against humanity.As for the regular army, well then the whole occupation is one illegal immoral crime against humanity.Do you have any idea of the effects of depleted uranium? Do you have any idea of how much of this stuff has been dumped on Iraq?

actually I happen to agree with you that depleted Uranium should be banned. and as far as black water which is no longer allowed to operate in Iraq or Afghanistan. All private security companies used in bodyguard protection should have more oversight and restrictions placed on them. Black water was only one of several companies used for private security of contractors and diplomats. And to some extent training purposes. however what other Governments do when they hire them is another matter.

 

[Thomas]

I support the right of all people in all places to live free of foreign occupation.

some could say the Taliban were a occupying force. The Northern Alliance simply simply retook the country with U.S. help.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Oh i have read that through and thorough and i know what you are saying, but you are not getting what i was saying, or may be you dont want to understand. Guud for you!

No, I don't understand what you are saying. Your point is too subtle for my feeble brain, seriously. I asked the question of PAFAce. He answered me straightforwardly. I was content with his answer. Then, you jumped in with your sarcastic? mash up of what I had posted and I was lost as to what you were getting at. My response treated your post as serious. I guess it wasn't a serious point, but I don't know what your point was.