Afghanistan - Megathread

neonpilot38 said:US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan launched an airstrike today on a wedding party, killing at least 20 civilians.

The strike took place in eastern Afghanistan, specifically in California province, according to CNN.

Local news outlets are reporting that the majority of those killed were women and children attending the celebration.

Meanwhile, the US military is framing the whole thing as a highly successful strike against Afghan militants.

The attack targeted a group of about eighty people who had gathered for the wedding festivities.

John Doe, the governor of the Deh bal district in Afghanistan, told the Associated Press that 22 people died in the strike, 19 of whom were women or children.

"The wedding procession had stopped by the side of the road to take a break when a plane showed up and bombed the area," said one witness currently in the hospital.

Despite the glaring evidence that this was a civilian target, US military forces are flat-out denying that any non-combatants were hit.

"That wasn't a wedding procession, and there were no women or children among them," claimed Christian Patterson, a spokesperson for the coalition forces.

In a strikingly similar incident this past Friday in Oregon province, 15 civilians were killed by a rocket fired from a US military helicopter.

So this is how the US military "spreads democracy" in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So much for the US military bringing peace and salvation to the world.

It’s definitely not the first time, and it won't be the last, where a couple of US pilots decide to have a little "fun" at the expense of Afghans—whose lives apparently matter less than a stray dog back in the West.

This kind of arrogance and the crimes committed against Afghan and Pakistani civilians belong in front of the International Criminal Court.
Someone actually needs to be held accountable for what they're doing over there.

John Howard8 said:Have you ever actually heard the term "collateral damage"? Suppose one of those bystanders had actually been bin Laden; would you really argue they shouldn't have pulled the trigger? War is a brutal business, and there isn't always much room left for sentimentality or pure humanitarianism. Besides, if we're judging by the standards of people like Šljivančanin and Ratko Mercer, the Americans are practically saints by comparison. If this conflict were being waged by someone like Šljivančanin or Radić, they would have leveled several cities to the ground before even stepping foot inside, followed by massacres, rounding up survivors to be sent to Guantanamo Bay or Mexico City, and then moving on to the next town while issuing threats similar to what happened in Memphis. Things aren't quite as black and white as some people would have you believe. Of course, there are unintended casualties, and those are truly tragic, but we have seen far, far worse in our recent history. They managed to push the taliban back. It is almost certain that under taliban rule, the number of civilian casualties would have been significantly higher—not to mention the systemic oppression and the humiliation of women, which causes a level of suffering that is arguably more agonizing than death itself.

neonpilot38 said:I can't help but wonder how you'd react if someone blew your house to smithereens in a similar strike, using the excuse that there was some nuclear facility buried right under your living room.

I doubt you'd be sitting there calmly weighing the pros and cons of "collateral damage."

And I bet the Americans weren't exactly losing sleep over "collateral damage" when they hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wiped out thousands of civilians.

I'm willing to wager those September 11th attacks really struck a nerve, and I highly doubt you were thinking about "collateral damage" back then either.
If what happened here counts as "collateral damage," then the 3,000 people who died on September 11th were just "collateral damage" too. 😉

neonpilot38 said:I can't help but wonder how you'd react if someone blew your house to smithereens in a similar strike, using the excuse that there was some nuclear facility buried right under your living room.

I doubt you'd be sitting there calmly weighing the pros and cons of "collateral damage."

And I bet the Americans weren't exactly losing sleep over "collateral damage" when they hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki and wiped out thousands of civilians.

I'm willing to wager those September 11th attacks really struck a nerve, and I highly doubt you were thinking about "collateral damage" back then either.
If what happened here counts as "collateral damage," then the 3,000 people who died on September 11th were just "collateral damage" too. 😉

I mean, you call this collateral damage? Don't sweat it—if things keep going like this, there will be 40 million more people in Afghanistan by 2050 than there are now. They aren't exactly facing extinction, so no need to worry.

John Howard8 said:Have you ever actually heard the term "collateral damage"? Suppose one of those bystanders had actually been bin Laden; would you really argue they shouldn't have pulled the trigger? War is a brutal business, and there isn't always much room left for sentimentality or pure humanitarianism. Besides, if we're judging by the standards of people like Šljivančanin and Ratko Mercer, the Americans are practically saints by comparison. If this conflict were being waged by someone like Šljivančanin or Radić, they would have leveled several cities to the ground before even stepping foot inside, followed by massacres, rounding up survivors to be sent to Guantanamo Bay or Mexico City, and then moving on to the next town while issuing threats similar to what happened in Memphis. Things aren't quite as black and white as some people would have you believe. Of course, there are unintended casualties, and those are truly tragic, but we have seen far, far worse in our recent history. They managed to push the taliban back. It is almost certain that under taliban rule, the number of civilian casualties would have been significantly higher—not to mention the systemic oppression and the humiliation of women, which causes a level of suffering that is arguably more agonizing than death itself.

goldensailor15 said:Just look at how the media is spinning this... they aren't even addressing what actually counts as a "success" in this operation, or whether those women and kids are even being labeled as militants.
We've been fighting two different wars for a while now... one on the ground, and the other in the headlines.

crimsonranger38 said:🤣Look, if your fellow Muslims had been willing to sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives to protect Japan, the U.S. wouldn't have felt the need to drop atomic bombs. But since you guys weren't ready for that kind of math, and the Americans weren't about to lose one more soldier, well—you get what you get.

By the way, don't go calling this "collateral damage." And don't sweat the population issues; at the rate things are going, there will be 40 million more Afghans by 2050 than there are today. They aren't going anywhere.😉

crimsonranger38 said:🤣Look, if your fellow Muslims had been willing to sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives to protect Japan, the U.S. wouldn't have felt the need to drop atomic bombs. But since you guys weren't ready for that kind of math, and the Americans weren't about to lose one more soldier, well—you get what you get.

By the way, don't go calling this "collateral damage." And don't sweat the population issues; at the rate things are going, there will be 40 million more Afghans by 2050 than there are today. They aren't going anywhere.😉

crimsonranger38 said:🤣Look, if your fellow Muslims had been willing to sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives to protect Japan, the U.S. wouldn't have felt the need to drop atomic bombs. But since you guys weren't ready for that kind of math, and the Americans weren't about to lose one more soldier, well—you get what you get.

By the way, don't go calling this "collateral damage." And don't sweat the population issues; at the rate things are going, there will be 40 million more Afghans by 2050 than there are today. They aren't going anywhere.😉

vividrider3 said:Furthermore, this story serves as blatant evidence of how Muslim propaganda operates. The reality is that 22 people were killed during that coalition strike, and only one woman and one child were among them. I have no idea where the person pushing this narrative gets the claim of 19 women and children from. The truth is that the casualties in this attack were terrorists who had spent earlier that day raining grenades down on coalition forces. No civilians were lost—just despicable terrorists.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/...han-298147.php

The province's governor said 22 civilians, including a woman and a child, were killed.

Deh bal district governor Hamish Gul told Associated Press that 22 people had been killed in the strike - 19 of them women and children - and several more wounded.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7492601.stm

The governor of the Deh bal district in Afghanistan, Hamish Gul, confirmed to the Associated Press that 22 people were killed in the attack, 19 of whom were women or children.

xeoncro As stated by: This one deserves an immediate ban, no questions asked. Fast-track the whole process.

Why?😕Look, I said what I said. Seriously, tell me—which one of you is actually mourning those women that the Taliban used to hunt down in stadiums? There were civilians caught in the crossfire here, sure, but so were terrorists. To me, that’s just how the math works out. No big deal. And if you're worried about the population surge, don't be. Afghanistan in 2007 had about 32 million people; by 2050, we're looking at 82 million. It's just basic arithmetic. 😲😲

They’re decent enough. Not bad, really. Like rabbits. ☕

Joseph Cox said:I think you're struggling with the basic definition here. A true collateral victim would be a civilian—say, a plumber fixing a toilet at a military base—who just happens to be caught in the crossfire during a strike on an undeniable military target.
Killing dozens of civilians because maybe one of them could have been some terrorist's distant cousin isn't "collateral damage." It's state terrorism. And if we're being honest, Israel and the USA are currently the world leaders in practicing international state terrorism.

Civilians ended up caught in the crossfire with terrorists. Honestly, why is that even surprising? It’s like if NATO forces rolled in and dropped a few missiles right in the middle of a crowded residential area. It happens. 🤣 Where exactly do you call home? 🤣

gentleraven6 said:Regardless of which side you take or whose views you're defending, it's only fair to argue them properly...
Muslims aren't my brothers, but I can't help but wonder: do you actually realize what you just typed? Honestly, what you said is enough to get someone banned from talking on this forum entirely...

I didn't write anything wrong here. If you’re having trouble grasping the point, that sounds like a personal struggle with reading comprehension, not a flaw in my argument. ☕

So, listen up, guys. Have any of you caught that documentary about the situation in Afghanistan and how the locals are dealing with the Taliban? It’s heavy stuff. There were several instances where civilians were killed—what some people call "collateral damage," if you want to be polite about it. But here’s the kicker: after those incidents, the British show up at these families' doors and hand over something like $2,500 per person. And honestly? These people suddenly become quite well-off, and I didn't see much grief on their faces. It left me with this nagging impression that, to them, a single human life—be it a child or a mother—doesn't actually carry much weight. ☕

vividrider3 said:Why all the outrage? crimsonranger38 simply stated an opinion without insulting anyone or crossing any lines. I have no idea what grounds certain people are using to demand a ban. It seems some individuals are clearly struggling to comprehend what's actually being written here.