PDA

View Full Version : Taliban flee battle using children as shields




obeygiant
Feb 14, 2007, 01:59 PM
KABUL (Reuters) - Taliban fighters used children as human shields to flee heavy fighting this week during an operation by foreign and Afghan forces to clear rebels from around a key hydro-electric dam,
NATO said on Wednesday.

The Taliban have used human shields before, but never children, local residents say.

The fighting occurred during Operation Kryptonite on Monday, an offensive to clear insurgents from the Kajaki Dam area in southern Helmand province to allow repairs to its power plants and the installation of extra capacity.

"During this action ... Taliban extremists resorted to the use of human shields. Specifically, using local Afghan children to cover as they escaped out of the area," Colonel Tom Collins, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), told reporters in Kabul.

The Kajaki Dam fighting was in an area where 700 mainly foreign fighters, including Chechens, Pakistanis and Uzbeks, arrived from Pakistan this week to reinforce Taliban guerrillas.

NATO also said it killed a senior local Taliban commander and several comrades in a pre-dawn air-strike on Wednesday between the dam and the rebel-held town of Musa Qala to the west, but denied residents' accounts civilians were also killed.

TARGETING REBEL LEADERS

The leader, identified by police and tribal elders as Mullah Manan, was involved in the capture of Musa Qala 13 days ago and clashes around Kajaki.

NATO said its soldiers saw 11 bodies, all fighting-age males, dragged from the wreckage by Taliban fighters. Provincial police said Manan and at least eight more Taliban were killed and that they had no word of civilian casualties.

But local residents and elders said civilians also died.

"It is a well-known enemy tactic to try to blame civilian casualties on ISAF forces," Collins said in a statement.

"We continue to conduct specific shaping operations -- to go after specific Taliban extremists, the leadership who are impacting the enemy's operations," he told reporters later.

The Interior Ministry said it has also arrested a Taliban leader in the province of Khost.

The Kajaki dam has seen major fighting in recent weeks between the Taliban and NATO forces, mainly British and Dutch.

NATO-led forces have been conducting operations in the area for several months to allow reconstruction on the dam and the power transmission lines to boost output, after fighting halted repair and development work last year.

The Taliban cannot destroy the dam, which would also flood a large area of the Helmand Valley, but its tactics are aimed at making it too unsafe for work to go ahead.

The dam was first built on the Helmand river in the 1950s.

Its hydroelectric plants, with a generating capacity of 33 megawatts, were installed in 1975. Once fully operational, the dam will bring electricity to 1.8 million people, NATO says.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070214/wl_nm/afghan_dc

Just awful.



gauchogolfer
Feb 14, 2007, 02:00 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070214/wl_nm/afghan_dc

Just awful.

Agreed. I really wish that we would have concentrated on fighting in Afghanistan and truly eliminating the Taliban as a viable threat rather than losing focus and going to war in Iraq.

psychofreak
Feb 14, 2007, 02:03 PM
EDIT: Removed as after posting I thought what I said may be offensive to some...

Kalns
Feb 14, 2007, 02:43 PM
The Taliban could not be defeated by military force alone. Neither can any modern force driven by religious ideology. Just as we moved from lines, to trenches to combined strategic warfare, we're now entering a new epoc. As trite as it may seem, I believe the only winning move is not to play. Sure, we "take the shot" when it comes to high value targets, but open warfare is no longer a viable option. I realize it's in our nature to take vengence, BUT, it's in their nature too. Munich (the movie) is a great example of this. To defeat evil of this sort, we have to commit to a superior moral nature.

xsedrinam
Feb 14, 2007, 03:55 PM
Agreed. I really wish that we would have concentrated on fighting in Afghanistan and truly eliminating the Taliban as a viable threat rather than losing focus and going to war in Iraq.
Now we're "losing focus" by going to war in Iraq while diverting troops to Afghanistan (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/afghanistan.troops/index.html). Killing two burgahs with one, stoned and poorly thought through foreign policy.

Ugg
Feb 14, 2007, 05:28 PM
This has all the makings of government propaganda. Nowhere does it mention who saw children being used as shields and even goes so far to say that no civilians were killed in the process of assassinating local leaders.

The US record of airstrikes on al qaeda/taliban almost always means that civilians end up as "collateral" damage.

The whole tone of this article stinks. If anyone can come up with other independent sources to back it up, I'll believe it, until then, its place is the garbage can.

mactastic
Feb 14, 2007, 06:54 PM
Wait, I thought the war in Afghanistan has already resulted in glorious US victory? Weren't the Taliban routed 2 years ago?

zimv20
Feb 14, 2007, 06:57 PM
This has all the makings of government propaganda. Nowhere does it mention who saw children being used as shields and even goes so far to say that no civilians were killed in the process of assassinating local leaders.
and "throwing babies out of hospital windows" has already been used.

Swarmlord
Feb 15, 2007, 08:18 AM
Wait, I thought the war in Afghanistan has already resulted in glorious US victory? Weren't the Taliban routed 2 years ago?

Routed doesn't mean that there weren't a few survivors that work tirelessly to reconstitute the organization.

obeygiant
Feb 15, 2007, 09:59 AM
This has all the makings of government propaganda. Nowhere does it mention who saw children being used as shields and even goes so far to say that no civilians were killed in the process of assassinating local leaders.

The US record of airstrikes on al qaeda/taliban almost always means that civilians end up as "collateral" damage.

The whole tone of this article stinks. If anyone can come up with other independent sources to back it up, I'll believe it, until then, its place is the garbage can.

Is it really so hard for you to believe that the Taliban would do this?

Taliban, civilians reported dead in Afghanistan attack

Various news organizations are reporting this morming on a deadly coalition attack in Afghanistan. "U.S.-led coalition aircraft bombed a rebel stronghold in southern Afghanistan," the Associated Press reports, "killing about 60 suspected Taliban militants and 16 civilians, an Afghan governor said Monday.

The BBC is on the scene as well. "A BBC reporter who visited a local hospital spoke to villagers who had been injured in the attack," the network's story says. "One said Taleban fighters had taken control of his house to launch missile attacks from the roof, and that many of his family members had died in the bombing raid."

The Taliban issues a denial to Reuters: "A spokesman for the Taliban, who are fighting to expel foreign troops and oust the elected government, said none of their fighters had been killed on Monday. All of the casualties were civilians, he said." But the U.S. military tells the wire service that Taliban fighters were confirmed dead after the attack.

You can keep defending the Taliban if you want. I wont stop you.

solvs
Feb 15, 2007, 10:57 AM
Routed doesn't mean that there weren't a few survivors that work tirelessly to reconstitute the organization.
A few? It was more than a few. Maybe we should have stayed there fighting the real terrorists instead of pulling resources to lose in a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and found some other way to deal with Saddam more effectively. But we didn't, so we've pretty much lost both. And then some.

Is it really so hard for you to believe that the Taliban would do this?
Not really (I actually do believe it), but we've been lied to some much it's hard to know what to believe anymore sometimes.

You can keep defending the Taliban if you want. I wont stop you.
Questioning the propaganda doesn't equal a defense of the enemy, and it's kinda insulting that you would infer as much.

obeygiant
Feb 15, 2007, 11:05 AM
Questioning the propaganda doesn't equal a defense of the enemy, and it's kinda insulting that you would infer as much.

Sorry if you were insulted. But the "This is Propaganda" line never comes up when it comes to US troop movements. You have to see that.

mactastic
Feb 15, 2007, 12:31 PM
Routed doesn't mean that there weren't a few survivors that work tirelessly to reconstitute the organization.
Ah so they're in their "last throes" eh?

Swarmlord
Feb 15, 2007, 01:20 PM
Ah so they're in their "last throes" eh?

Actually Karzai and others in the Afgan government have too much faith in the salvageability of their people. They also depend on too much on tribal authority and traditions. There's always a new crop of people convinced that the Taliban way could have been sucessful if only...

mactastic
Feb 15, 2007, 01:33 PM
Actually Karzai and others in the Afgan government have too much faith in the salvageability of their people.
What? Are you saying the Afghan people are not "salvageable"? :confused:
They also depend on too much on tribal authority and traditions. There's always a new crop of people convinced that the Taliban way could have been sucessful if only...
So you were against the Afghanistan invasion from the beginning based upon this logic? Or is this a recent flash of insight?

Or are you just being contrary again?

Swarmlord
Feb 15, 2007, 02:05 PM
What? Are you saying the Afghan people are not "salvageable"? :confused:

So you were against the Afghanistan invasion from the beginning based upon this logic? Or is this a recent flash of insight?

Or are you just being contrary again?

No, I was referring the taliban minded people. I've never heard of them cured of their ways by anything other than "lead poisoning".

mactastic
Feb 15, 2007, 02:29 PM
No, I was referring the taliban minded people. I've never heard of them cured of their ways by anything other than "lead poisoning".

And you were against the invasion of Afghanistan because of your assertion that "There's always a new crop of people convinced that the Taliban way could have been sucessful if only... "?

Or did you support it despite knowing it was doomed to fail?

Ugg
Feb 15, 2007, 05:49 PM
Is it really so hard for you to believe that the Taliban would do this?



You can keep defending the Taliban if you want. I wont stop you.


The information stinks. Why didn't the guy and his family abandon the house? I would think that if someone is setting up rocket launchers on your roof, it would behoove a person to leave.

There's obviously a difference between defending the taleban and criticising the sources that the news orgs use to make their sensationalist headlines. Or for that matter, the propagana that has been fed them by the US.