U.S. Admits Civilians Died in Afghan Raids

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mgguy, May 7, 2009.

  1. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #1
    The following excerpt from today's New York Times article documents the killing of civilians in
    Afghanistan by American bombs presumably approved by Obama. Is anybody shocked by the killing of innocents in what might arguably be an illegal war? This goes way beyond the use of water boarding as a means to protect US national security.

     
  2. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
  3. mgguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #3
    How so?

    EDIT: Never mind. I get it: O bomb a. I wish I could say I intended that, but no can do.
     
  4. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #4
    I love that news like this gets next to zero screen time, yet people are still freaking out about that stupid distraction (flu).

    I had to peruse al jazeera before I found anything about this.
     
  5. designgeek macrumors 65816

    designgeek

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Location:
    "Town"
    #5
    Probably because it doesn't directly affect us the way this flu could if it really were a threat, which it isn't. Although I wonder if we Americans are just tired of all the scares that never have a wide sweeping affect since the FDA can't seem to pull it together.
     
  6. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #6
    Are you kidding? America loves fear, as long as it's not something that really matters, but more along the lines of a serial killer or Africanized honey bees.
     
  7. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #7
    I've been reading a few other sources and I'm bothered by how little is known in the story. A few questions:

    What weapon was used? Was a bomb dropped from high altitude or was this done by a Predator/Reaper?

    Currently, there seems to be some indication that a combination of Taliban grenades and US bombs caused the casualties, which indicates that maybe a single US bomb was used and Taliban forces then tried to create a PR coup by killing more civilians.

    Was there even a US attack at all?

    *A stupid question. The answer is yes.
     
  8. mgguy thread starter macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #8
    What evidence do you have to support this?
     
  9. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    None, which is why I didn't present it as a fact. I simply do not know.

    However, from this article:


    That was sloppiness on my part, I wrote the question, went out and read several articles and then hit submit without removing the question. Clearly, more than a 100 civilians are dead as a result of US action in the Farah region and that's a terrible thing.

    My central point is, what the hell was going on that day? Some articles from foreign press describe a firefight of some kind, others just indicate an "air raid" or "bombardment."

    Understanding what happened beyond the casualty report is an important aspect to understanding how US forces can avoid such incidents because clearly this isn't helping our efforts in the country.
     
  11. todd2000 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Location:
    Danville, VA
    #11
    While the loss of civilian life is never a good thing, there are not enough credible details to draw a conclusion. We have to either believe the Taliban, and Afgan civilians, who (and I don't blame them) might lie, exaggerate, or stretch the truth a bit to try to make a case for the U.S. to leave. Or we have to believe the Military, who doesn't want to admit that we may have accidently caused civilian causalities.

    I personally think it was probably a mix of U.S. bombing, and the Taliban that caused the deaths, but unless you were on the ground when all this happened it;s hard to know for sure.

    P.S. As for the thread title, Im sure good ol' G.W. never killed innocent civilians?
     
  12. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    They both are responsible for the deaths of civilians. The war in Afghanistan is no more legitimate than the one in Iraq (that is to say, they are both completely ridiculous and unnecessary, and we should not be in either country).
     
  13. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #13
    Maybe he is quoting an the same unnamed Pentagon sources NYT and CNN are
     
  14. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #14
    If there was any failure by the media and international medical agencies, it was in not adequately explaining why the swine flu posed (and still poses) a significant danger. Allow me to illustrate:

    With the typical seasonal influenza, if you are infected by it and pass it on to, say, 5 other people, there's a good chance that 4 out of 5 of those people will possess a natural immunity or an immunity shored by their flu shot. After six generations, the infection rate would look something like this:

    1--->1--->1--->1--->1--->1

    With the swine flu, which represents what is essentially a new and unknown strain of flu, if you pass it on to 5 other people there's a good chance all five will become infected. If each of those people then pass it on to 5 more, you get something that looks like this after six generations:

    1--->5--->25--->125--->625--->3 125

    (That's 2 million by the 10th generation)

    Let's say the media "hype" causes roughly ⅓ of the at risk population to be more careful than they otherwise would have been, and observe additional hygiene protocols that helps to stop the transmission of the virus as early as the second generation.

    1--->3--->9--->27--->81--->243

    (a mere 20 000 by the 10th generation)

    All of a sudden what could have been disastrous becomes much more easily manageable. I hope I have explained that to the satisfaction of any resident doctors, and if I have not I am open to correction; this is the situation as I understand it.

    As to the topic at hand: if this story is accurate then as the commander-in-chief Obama is absolutely responsible, and deferring that responsibility to the previous administration will only go so far. This is a situation that needs to be ended, and it needs to be ended immediately. Failing to act resolutely is to continue to abide by the precedent set by the previous POTUS, and to be thus complicit (which, to be frank, I already believe the Democratic party — with few exceptions — to be criminally so).
     
  15. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #15

    I'm amazed that the President could find time in his busy schedule to do that.
     
  16. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #16
    I think he had time before he gets ready for American Idol.



    On the story... I am pretty sure Obama wasn't in the planes that dropped the bombs. I am also pretty sure that many casualties were caused by the locals, that view is based on what friends told me from Iraq during the first "war" there
     
  17. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #17
    What a ridiculous thread title. I don't remember a similar personalised description ever being used during the invasion of Iraq (i.e. "Bush bombs thousands of civilians"). Even the damned liberals never sunk that low :rolleyes:
     
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    Since when has anyone called the war in Afghanistan "illegal"? I for one, have never been against the invasion of Afghanistan, EVEN WHEN BUSH WENT THERE. I thought it was appropriate after 9/11. IMO, it's where we should have focused our efforts from the beginning. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and never attacked us.

    Oh- and I missed the part where Obama was flying a plane over Afghanistan.
     
  19. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #19
    My thoughts exactly. The invasion of Iraq hampered efforts in Afghanistan and has resulted in it dragging on a lot longer than it needed to. In the meantime the lack of media focus on the resulting regime has allowed corruption to become completely endemic. We now have a situation whereby the Western-backed government in Kabul is less trusted by typical Afghans than the Taliban. Not a good sign for how this is going to play out.
     
  20. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #20
    Don't feel bad, I'm still trying to find solid proof that Obama was flying Air Force One over Manhattan :rolleyes:

    I've never been against the war in Afghanistan, I've been against Bush's handling of it. It's just one of many things he f-ed up.
     
  21. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    What is wrong with you people?! You make light of a situation like this? If Bush were in power and this were to have happened you'd all be crying foul.

    @Lee, seriously? You think the flu is scary and headline news, but this is no biggy?

    Geesh.
     
  22. remmy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    #22
    I totally agree, Obama should of never led the invasion for Afghanistan and Iraq.
     
  23. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #23
    Spare me your indignance, Jim. Yes, this is terrible news. But the thread was started on a false premise- that Obama bombed civilians. We'd have called that out if this was about Bush. We did in the past. What I find even more hilarious is that conservatives are now getting all worked up about a war that they supported in the first place. I find it disingenuous and hollow. This thread was started as nothing more than a way to bait liberals.
     
  24. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #24
    Have you read the articles or the follow ups? The fact is American troops bombed and killed around a hundred innocent civilians.

    Wouldn't you want more answers if another country came in and did the same to Chicago?
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    Are you listening? Do you not find it the least bit annoying that suddenly conservatives like the OP are now suddenly interested in civilian casualties now that we have a Democratic president? They sure didn't care when it was Bush doing it. Do you not find it a bit misleading that the OP said OBAMA bombed civilians, when clearly that isn't the case? I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

    That said- Of course I care. It's terrible. And of course civilians being killed is a huge concern. It needs to stop. But the OP was more interested in baiting liberals than he was concerned for Afghani civilians. That's what a lot of us are pointing out. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to tell you.
     

Share This Page