Another Falklands war?

[Jon MW]

OMG are you saying innocent people might die in a war!! Who'd have thought.

There are reasons why the Afghan war could be seen as unnecessary, but because the military might make mistakes isn't one of them.

Of course it would be good if any war where any mistakes might be made instantly stopped - but it's just as feasible as achieving world peace by any other means


And the difference with terrorism is that in war civilians aren't deliberately targeted - when they die in a war it's a mistake, rather than the aim.

[bobby1]

OMG are you saying innocent people might die in a war!! Who'd have thought.

There are reasons why the Afghan war could be seen as unnecessary, but because the military might make mistakes isn't one of them.

Of course it would be good if any war where any mistakes might be made instantly stopped - but it's just as feasible as achieving world peace by any other means


And the difference with terrorism is that in war civilians aren't deliberately targeted - when they die in a war it's a mistake, rather than the aim.

Not good enough tho John, those figures are far too high to ignore and the point is these are being covered up to make sure the 'just' war is seen to be that.

Tank, I dont understand what you mean, there was a joint inquiry, both side agreed a finding.

[thetank]

Tank, I dont understand what you mean, there was a joint inquiry, both side agreed a finding.

I haven't seen any reporting of this joint inquiry. Do you have a link?

All I've seen are sites that reek of bias who quote any NATO source making some sort of concession and taking that as an admission that they've been popping caps in the heads of 12 year old boys. It doesn't add up to me.

I haven't seen any admission from NATO that the people bumped off were all innocent civilans and definately not involved in the insurgency. The quote you've given from NATO said that it wasn't major players they bumped off and so their attack might not have been justified.

[bobby1]

Tank, I dont understand what you mean, there was a joint inquiry, both side agreed a finding.

I haven't seen any reporting of this joint inquiry. Do you have a link?

All I've seen are sites that reek of bias who quote any NATO source making some sort of concession and taking that as an admission that they've been popping caps in the heads of 12 year old boys. It doesn't add up to me.

I haven't seen any admission from NATO that the people bumped off were all innocent civilans and definately not involved in the insurgency. The quote you've given from NATO said that it wasn't major players they bumped off and so their attack might not have been justified.

The story was in The Times yesterday by someone called Jerome Satrkey with details off the  findings inside

[Geo the Sarge]

OMG are you saying innocent people might die in a war!! Who'd have thought.

There are reasons why the Afghan war could be seen as unnecessary, but because the military might make mistakes isn't one of them.

Of course it would be good if any war where any mistakes might be made instantly stopped - but it's just as feasible as achieving world peace by any other means


And the difference with terrorism is that in war civilians aren't deliberately targeted - when they die in a war it's a mistake, rather than the aim.

Bit harsh imo Jon, of course we know that innocents will be killed in any conflict.

Phil is merely pointing out the manner and frequency it seems to be happening and personally I agree. As Tank says, one of the events highlighted may not be quite as cut and dried as some potray but there have been too many instances that have been very poor examples of decision making/Gun Ho-ness

Geo

[thetank]

Fair enough bobby, I hadn't read that one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7040166.ece

Nato’s statement, issued four days after the event, said that troops were attacked “from several buildings” as they entered the village. Yesterday it said that “ultimately, we did determine this to be a civilian casualty incident”.

[bobby1]

Fair enough bobby, I hadn't read that one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7040166.ece

Nato’s statement, issued four days after the event, said that troops were attacked “from several buildings” as they entered the village. Yesterday it said that “ultimately, we did determine this to be a civilian casualty incident”.

Thats what sits so badly Tank. John mentioned of course civilians will be killed in a war and thats true but these deaths are fundamentaly wrong  in every way.

The intelligence is wrong leading to children being shot dead. Then the lies from high office to cover up these deaths are wrong and even the pathetic compensation amounts are wrong.

How must it look to the Afghan people, we say we ar there to protect them and help build the country into a safe place, yet we have killed 60 civilians in a month and tried to cover the incidents up. To the Afghans we mist look like criminals, how else can it look when buses are being bombed and kids are being gunned down?

[bobby1]

Just read the article. Obviously you cannot condone killing of civilians; Gen McChrystals COIN policy is drummed into our guys all the way through the chain of command. As it states in the article, he has stated that NATO risks strategic defeat if we do not cut down on the civilian death toll...

That said I would be very careful on passing judgement on the strength of the article. It is simply too ambigious. We have unnamed NATO 'sources' (not always reliable), Afghan officials and Police chiefs (DEFINITELY not reliable), denials of involvement, compensation forms (currency in themselves), the list goes on. AND - on the flipside, you do get kids of this age fighting/handling weapons/devices. See what comes out in the wash - as with everything in Afghanistan, nothing is quite what it seems - and the waters are always extremely murky.

If I were to give some advice to people in the UK watching the news, it is to remember that Afghanistan is NOTHING like the UK. Corruption (as we know it) is not necassarily seen as a crime - more a way of life. Individuals highest loyalties are not necessarily to their country, their employer, their religion - their biggest loyalty is usually to their tribe. This is why corruption is so pervasive, the border with PAK is so porous (many don't even recognise the border) and Insurgents move easily between shelters...

To really understand the place, you need to visit but also undertake some reading on its history and culture. The complexity of the place will have you tearing your hair out.  I thought the Balkans was bad all those years ago, but they have nothing on these guys...

all the best mate

[ACE2M]

Just read the article. Obviously you cannot condone killing of civilians; Gen McChrystals COIN policy is drummed into our guys all the way through the chain of command. As it states in the article, he has stated that NATO risks strategic defeat if we do not cut down on the civilian death toll...

That said I would be very careful on passing judgement on the strength of the article. It is simply too ambigious. We have unnamed NATO 'sources' (not always reliable), Afghan officials and Police chiefs (DEFINITELY not reliable), denials of involvement, compensation forms (currency in themselves), the list goes on. AND - on the flipside, you do get kids of this age fighting/handling weapons/devices. See what comes out in the wash - as with everything in Afghanistan, nothing is quite what it seems - and the waters are always extremely murky.

If I were to give some advice to people in the UK watching the news, it is to remember that Afghanistan is NOTHING like the UK. Corruption (as we know it) is not necassarily seen as a crime - more a way of life. Individuals highest loyalties are not necessarily to their country, their employer, their religion - their biggest loyalty is usually to their tribe. This is why corruption is so pervasive, the border with PAK is so porous (many don't even recognise the border) and Insurgents move easily between shelters...

To really understand the place, you need to visit but also undertake some reading on its history and culture. The complexity of the place will have you tearing your hair out.  I thought the Balkans was bad all those years ago, but they have nothing on these guys...

all the best mate

+1

[thetank]

darn good post there from jjandellis